Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/01/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_photos_1.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_in_2021.10.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_pyramid_(structure)_on_January,_1st,_2022.png){kind=link}
._1960-е_годы.jpg){kind=link}
._1956_год.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution photograph. It is almost a duplicate of a more recent, high resolution photograph found here. I have replaced the usage of this file on all relevant projects. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This should be a speedy. Let me fix that. Sorry. Self keep. --Missvain (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Fake image Mohd Kaifi Warsi (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy deletion, nominated by uploader quickly after upload. Thuresson (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Fake file name Mohd Kaifi Warsi (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Fake image Mohd Kaifi Warsi (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD G7 (uploader or author request) --bjh21 (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy deletion, nominated by uploader quickly after upload. Thuresson (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Fake image Mohd Kaifi Warsi (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy deletion, nominated by uploader quickly after upload. Thuresson (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This was a test I did to get a feel for publishing an image. I did not mean to publish it and am not sure how to delete it, if possible. Lorenzo The Snail (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I accidentally downloaded a wrong picture. I do not own or have the permission to post this picture online and I will post another one after this is deleted. Isomaeki (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged for chemical mistake, File:Danaidone.png is corrected replacement (structure matches fr:Danaidone) DMacks (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep. It looks like the image has been corrected now. Marbletan (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm going to withdraw this DR request, but not request deletion of the PNG because the SVG seems unusually "light" in style. I noticed the creator fixed it promptly when alerted to this DR, but had not gotten alerted to the {{Disputed chem}} tag from last April. @Marbletan: , there is a cut'n'paste-able tag you can use to notify editors when you tag their chem images as disputed. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DMacks (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't delete it but change the info. The building survived the bombing of WWII. The publisher Axel Springer wanted a parking lot for his cars. after the war. 68.194.140.13 16:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
File:Philip Tilker while competing at Pinty's Grand Slam of Curling in Thunder Bay, Ontario (2018).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploaded wrong photo - this one is not my photo 199.253.251.51 17:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
poor solution, better version of the same picture: File:181039rwtfuxrztrd8f2eg.jpg Kcx36 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep this upload was in scope in 2006 and still is. Just tag it with {{Superseded}}. Multichill (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Fake + Edited + Flickrwash. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Yahya (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Derivative works from other photo. Out of Commons:Project scope self-promotion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Need OTRS permission (https://www.instagram.com/p/CNP3XuPp2_f/) 219.78.129.60 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this file was taken by the uploader or is licenced under a free licence Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Also applies to File:1 MG 3169 2.jpg. Since it's an image from instagram they are both tagged with SD F1 now Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Túrelio per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
nothing to do with de:BKK B. Braun Aesculap, doubled, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BKK_Logo.svg 2A01:C22:6E2C:7600:1874:99F:3E63:AB07 12:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicated file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
no redirect needed Mircus Drak (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted by Túrelio. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johnnyknox23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These appear to all be T-shirt and shoe designs from Partykingwear, possibly mixed with fan art of the same. But at least one appears on an external website, File:Cami de la cruz fashion designer.jpg is a copy of https://www.partykng.com/product-page/che-partytheking . If the uploader doesn't have permission to upload these then it's a copyright violation, if they represent the brand then that's COM:ADVERT.
- File:Partykingwear mens ladies.jpg
- File:Partykingwear designs macys.jpg
- File:Partykingwear brand rock n roll.jpg
- File:Partykng mens rock n roll shirts.jpg
- File:Partykingwear shirts.jpg
- File:Partykingwear mens wear.jpg
- File:Partykng designs.jpg
- File:Partykng converse 23.jpg
- File:Partykingwear ropa de hombre.jpg
- File:Partykingwear PRIDE GLORY.jpg
- File:Ultra music festival mexico.jpg
- File:Partykingwear mens rock n roll.jpg
- File:Partykingwear rock n roll apperal.jpg
- File:Partykingwear mens shirts.jpg
- File:Cami de la cruz fashion designer.jpg
- File:Cami de la cruz sketches.jpg
- File:Partykingwear rock n roll shirts.jpg
- File:Partykingwear mens clothing.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Sock promotion/copyvio/recreation of deleted content - see Johnnyknox13 deleted contribs, etc. --Эlcobbola talk 21:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not official coat of arm of Zhnyborody. This is my project. I did not give permission to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Vity OKM (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 17:44, 20 January 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: Not official coat of arm of Zhnyborody. This is my project. I did not give permission to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. --Krdbot 19:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This tweet only allow its use in Wikipedia, which does not render it CC-BY-SA 4.0 as claimed by the uploader. Horus (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Retracted. It is stated in the comment. --Horus (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR withdrawn. --Achim55 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Probable hoax based on COM:HD#How do I make a new category?. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Comment from duplicated nomination) This image represents a conspiracy theory about a supposed massacre in Greenland in 1977. Per a discussion at Commons:Help desk#How do I make a new category? there is no source to support either the existence of the massacre or the existence of the conspiracy theory beyond the production of two friends. Requests on the Help Desk for any source material about the supposed massacre or conspiracy theory have resulted in a statement of "we know that something happened there and we know that what we know is correct, but we don't know everything that happened."[1] This appears to be a fictional account of no educational value and is therefore outside of the Commons:Scope. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, below the level of nonsense. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not true, R1LKMA is a person who doesn't like me, he's my neighbor. All of the information you were given, is false. This image is art for the book I'm making and I just wanted to put it up on Wikimedia Commons because I didn't really have anywhere else to put it. ER6876976778 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not his friend, I'm his neighbor and I've never gone to Greenland in my lifetime. ER6876976778 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whether you know the other user or not, your reason for storing the file here is also outside of the Commons:Scope. We are not a repository for random images that people create. You may want to register for Flikr, Instagram or other image storage site that has more flexible rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I need a file on Wikimedia Commons so, when I put the summary of my book on Wikipedia I'll have an image to put in it. Also, its not a random image, its the picture that's going to be the cover of my book. ER6876976778 (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The image provides a brief summary of what the first 3 chapters of the book are going to be like because its the main focus of the book so, I think it IS in the Commons:Scope . ER6876976778 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ER6876976778: en:WP:COI (and similar policies on Wikipedia in other languages) mean you should not write about your own book on Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whether you know the other user or not, your reason for storing the file here is also outside of the Commons:Scope. We are not a repository for random images that people create. You may want to register for Flikr, Instagram or other image storage site that has more flexible rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly outside of Commons scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Great job, this person deserved that. Jonathon Josh Jane (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment — Checking in to the Help Desk through my watchlist, it sure appears that one or more persons have created accounts solely to prank the Help Desk or to foment nonsense in general. Amazing how some of you have put a lot of effort into playing along.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Help Desk attracts a wide range of people with varying levels of skill and motivation. If we made your assumption on the first interaction that all new editors are vandals, then the whole project would fall appart. Instead, in this case we gave the user sufficient rope to hang themselves, which they appear to have done so. Further acknowledgement of the user is pointless. Their file(s) will be deleted once an admin reviews the case and we can move on. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- From hill to shore, people will see this an I love that because well, I hate my neighbor R1LKMA ( not his actual name ) and I have to admit he did make a pretty convincing story which holds 0 value and I don't even know how he thought about that but, his house did burn down last night so, that's good. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Its not better he has to stay in my house for a few days until he can move into his new house. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- From hill to shore, people will see this an I love that because well, I hate my neighbor R1LKMA ( not his actual name ) and I have to admit he did make a pretty convincing story which holds 0 value and I don't even know how he thought about that but, his house did burn down last night so, that's good. ER6876976778 (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Help Desk attracts a wide range of people with varying levels of skill and motivation. If we made your assumption on the first interaction that all new editors are vandals, then the whole project would fall appart. Instead, in this case we gave the user sufficient rope to hang themselves, which they appear to have done so. Further acknowledgement of the user is pointless. Their file(s) will be deleted once an admin reviews the case and we can move on. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DonavanLittle12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- = Donavanlittle1 (talk · contribs)
Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free webhost.
- File:Donavan Little.jpg
- File:Donavan.jpg
- File:Donavan 02.jpg
- File:Donavan 01.jpg
- File:DonavanL.jpg
- File:Donavan Grant Little.jpg
- File:Dlittle.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: F10. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
{{DR proposed close}} F10 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.125.28.105 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Dubious claims of own work on these older group shots.
- File:Peterhouse May Boat 1896 - 1.png
- File:Peterhouse Boat Club 1911 .png
- File:Peterhouse Tennis Team 1921.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-UK-unknown. If you can take the time to nominate these images, you can take a few seconds more and read the conditions to be entered into the public domain in the county of creation. I think if you are clever enough to recognize there is a problem with the attribution and license, and have enough time to spend nominating, you have enough time to look at the license parameters and fix the problem. I have brought this up with you before. --RAN (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, the problem is claim of anonymous work, but here is no evidence, that this is true. I must delete two last photos. The first is enough old for public domain without known authorship and I will Keep it. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality, mix of different styles and this not according to MOS. Leyo 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Low quality makes educational use unlikely. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Sodium oleate.svg. Leyo 00:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Low quality makes educational use unlikely. Pretty odd rendering indeed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a real SVG; replaced by File:Dipines.svg. Leyo 00:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, better alternatives in Category:7-Dehydrocholesterol. Leyo 00:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to the image quality issue, stereochemistry is essential information regarding the structure and properties of steroids and this image is missing all stereochemical information. Marbletan (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Not drawn according to MOS, quality inferior to File:ALAT Reaktion.svg and File:Alanine transaminase.png. Leyo 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo without education use Drakosh (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 18:48, 28 January 2022 UTC: No permission since 19 January 2022 --Krdbot 02:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Chemical mistake and non-free source. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It has a chemistry error and it is unused. Marbletan (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While likely under TOO, it seems that one of the free electron pairs of a fluorine atom has moved way down to the lower left corner. No use of the image in this state. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect: the two angled bonds would connect to the Sn itself directly, not th each other first. Have File:Potassium stannate.svg DMacks (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It has a chemistry error and it is unused. Marbletan (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure where any bonds are connecting "to each other", but the low quality of this image and existence of way better alternatives makes educational use unlikely. Delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: any place that bonds come together, there must be an atom. The two lines from the left-hand oxygens come together to each other, with that juncture being adjacent to the tin atom. So there is something there where those two lines meet: by en:skeletal diagram standards, that would be a carbon atom. If the intended meaning is that both O bond to the Sn, then the two lines individually go to the Sn directly, not to each otehr first. Compare File:Methoxymethane 200.svg to File:Aceton.svg. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- @DMacks Well, fair enough, though if there was a carbon atom there, there would be another clearly visible separate bond to the Sn from where the lines meet. I suppose the problem is not that they connect "to each otehr first" (I would describe that as meeting each other and the Sn simultaneously), but that they meet at all. In any case, that falls under the poor drawing of the image. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: any place that bonds come together, there must be an atom. The two lines from the left-hand oxygens come together to each other, with that juncture being adjacent to the tin atom. So there is something there where those two lines meet: by en:skeletal diagram standards, that would be a carbon atom. If the intended meaning is that both O bond to the Sn, then the two lines individually go to the Sn directly, not to each otehr first. Compare File:Methoxymethane 200.svg to File:Aceton.svg. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We have a high-quality replacement as well. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no proof that the logo is available under a free license. GAndy (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 03:24, 31 January 2022 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Non-trivial sport club logo --Krdbot 08:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Taivo as no source (No source since) Which is totally correct. The image appears to be an old postcard. I changed the nomination to here in an effort to get more information about this image to keep it if possible. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When you scan a postcard, isn't the postcard itself the source, which is correctly in the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:EVID. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This appears to be a photoshopped scanned postcard of a line drawing of a building drawn in Valencia, Spain circa 1920 to 1940. Without information about the lifetime of each copyright holder and the date and country of the architectural drawings and each image's first publication, how can we possibly determine whether or not the resulting image is PD? See also COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Photoshopped" means to alter an image, this was scanned using Photoshop, and is unaltered. --RAN (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately there is insufficient information to confirm the copyright status. The image is said to be that of a building in Spain but the photograph has attracted a copyright tag for an anonymous work of Italy. The first question we must ask is which country the postcard originated from. Did a photograph from Spain appear on a postcard published in Italy (perhaps as part of a collection of postcards about international buildings) or was the postcard published in Spain? It is possible that the postcard was sent from Spain to Italy and was retained in an Italian archive; the physical location of the postcard does not overide the original place of publication. These are the two most plausible places of publication based on the limited information we have but the postcard may have been published in a third country. There is also the question of whether it is really an anonymous work; we are treating it as anonymous simply because the uploader has not given us any information about the postcard. It is likely that the postcard has no evidence of the original photographer but without the uploader confirming that fact or providing even basic details of the postcard, we have not made a reasonable effort to ascertain that it is an anonymous work. We also have no evidence of publication; the act of creating the postcard and selling it counts as publication but are the dates on this file (c. 1920 to 1940) the dates of publication of the postcard or the date when the image on the postcard was taken? According to both Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the copyright for anonymous works is 70 years from publication. If the uploader can give us some basic details of where they found the postcard, there may be sufficient evidence to confirm place and date of publication. At that point we can then confirm whether the US copyright has also expired. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has added {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-Spain-photo}} to the file page. Unfortunately, without a comment from the uploader, it is unclear if either licence can apply here. In terms of the Spanish licence, that applies solely to photos; it is currently unclear whether this image is a low quality photo, a good quality drawing or an engraving adapted from either a photo or a drawing. I note that the previous confusion around country of origin was an incorrect licence inserted after this deletion discussion was started;[2] I think it it safe to rule out any relation to Italy here. The same edit that added Italy also removed a suggestion left by the uploader that the postcard was published in Valencia, Spain.[3][4] For the EU licence, a "reasonable" level of effort must have been undertaken to confirm the identity of the creator. I was going to say that "we have no evidence of any effort taken by the uploader to confirm either the country of publication or the date of creation." However, I have to revise that as all indications are that this came from Valencia, Spain. I'll make a further comment shortly based solely on Spanish copyright rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Can you please provide a comment on why you think this dates to between 1920 and 1940?[5] Dating of the image will play an important part in deciding whether to keep the file and if you have already gathered some more evidence on identifying it, that would be very useful for the discussion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has added {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-Spain-photo}} to the file page. Unfortunately, without a comment from the uploader, it is unclear if either licence can apply here. In terms of the Spanish licence, that applies solely to photos; it is currently unclear whether this image is a low quality photo, a good quality drawing or an engraving adapted from either a photo or a drawing. I note that the previous confusion around country of origin was an incorrect licence inserted after this deletion discussion was started;[2] I think it it safe to rule out any relation to Italy here. The same edit that added Italy also removed a suggestion left by the uploader that the postcard was published in Valencia, Spain.[3][4] For the EU licence, a "reasonable" level of effort must have been undertaken to confirm the identity of the creator. I was going to say that "we have no evidence of any effort taken by the uploader to confirm either the country of publication or the date of creation." However, I have to revise that as all indications are that this came from Valencia, Spain. I'll make a further comment shortly based solely on Spanish copyright rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gobierno_Civil._Plaza_Temple.jpg&diff=next&oldid=623084774){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gobierno_Civil._Plaza_Temple.jpg&oldid=393678030){kind=link}
- It is my estimation based on other postcards we have in Category:Postcards_of_Spain_by_decade. Spain only requires that it be more than 25 years old, it was certainly created prior to 1997. Starting in the mid 1950s postcards were printed in color, and this one is in black and white. --RAN (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged as chemical mistake, replaced by File:MK-886.svg DMacks (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I checked Chemical Abstracts and File:L 663536.svg depicts a known compound (CAS#118415-57-9) with 23 literature references and it is included in Wikidata (w:wikidata:Q6460546). The image is high quality and potentially worth keeping, so maybe rename it and add the image to the Wikidata page, instead of deleting? Marbletan (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- No objection to keeping if it's got a use. File:L-663536-3D-spacefill.png is of the same substance, so it should be renamed likewise. It looks like an easy confusion when looking at text, one is "MK 886" and the other "MK 866". DMacks (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I have added File:L 663536.svg to its wikidata entry and corrected the description box. I would suggest renaming the file to File:MK-866.svg. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as per Chem Sim 2001. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
SVG with errors: text is partly cut, R1 should read R1 etc. Leyo 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Furthermore, the file is unused and should hence get deleted. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Very low quality, probably taken from https://vspu.edu.ua/index.php?p=administration - i think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; contact COM:VRT if you are the copyright holder. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation, the uploader may not be the author. The uploader has uploaded multiple copyright violations, including File:Dr Jaya Mahesh(1).jpg which is of the same subject who is wearing the same dress. Low resolution file without camera metadata. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: Promo photo. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Please provide source URL and license information for all images used in any collage. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
[[Category:{{subst:delete2|image=File:Chola Temples.jpg]]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
_photos_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_photos_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:TOYS Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
_photos_1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
_photos_1.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be a band promotional gallery, not own work.
- File:Paseando en Herce.jpg
- File:Cavern 2006.jpg
- File:Strawberry grupo.jpg
- File:R&JM.jpg
- File:Abraham grupo.jpg
- File:Los aster.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No indication of own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (no one makes a graph that is illegible from scratch). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No source, unlikely own work' Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no source (No source since) - which is 100% correct. But subject of image died in 200AD more or less, and it's possible the image is from out of copyright. If we only had more information from the Uploader! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal/promotional logo with no educational value. Out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also unclear copyright status. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work, and description supports that (see black bar on top too). Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Promotional image with possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David eliaz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of Roblox, not own work
- File:Roblox.status.io Oct 2021 Incident.png
- File:Roblox studio 2020.png
- File:RobloxStudioWIKImadebyDavideliaz.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: COM:DW/screenshots of non-free content.. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Leonel Sohns 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The color scheme is outdated and no longer used in any official documentation published by the DCAA. Nonosh666 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file.
Better still, have the original images overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.
- File:Hoyop-Hoyopan.jpg
- File:Legazpi Boulevard 2.jpg
- File:Four pillars.jpg
- File:Sorsogon Church.jpg
- File:Baluarte 2.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake MousumiArts (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake MousumiArts (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I realized it is bad for my privacy MousumiArts (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake MousumiArts (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake MousumiArts (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Frieder Blickle is a professional photographer (https://www.laifcore.com/photographer/frieder-blickle/) and has similar photos up on the LAIF stock photo site. Epicsunwarrior (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erick Wrights (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful if the images are self-photographed images by the uploader.
- These all seem to be screenshots of social media posts
- Low resolution in .png format, likely a screenshot too
- Montage missing source/attribution for component images, likely stolen from the social media or web (COM:Collages)
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- With strange transmission codes
These last uploads have strange transmission location codes that suggest these may have come from social media (Twitter?).
- File:Rep. Quisumbing speaking in Congress.jpg - "TZL1O84ZifJU0EKXqw-d"
- File:Luigi-2.jpg - "0tRbUzTixpBvtXRAFgVF"
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
изображение не несёт никакой смысловой загрузки и создано для издевательства Engelberthumperdink (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Attack content. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this image was ever published under a free license and I also highly doubt that the uploader is the real author of the work Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See also TinEye. Uploader looks like a spambot. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Also to delete:* File:S.m Kaif aka shaikh bhaiyya.jpg
* File:S.m Kaif at cbi headquarter.jpg
* File:Amit shah tweet on me.png
* File:S.m Kaif.jpg
* File:Logo of Trip healer.jpg
A collection of images that are either takes from somewhere or are self made items for a not notable company (speedy deletion as F10: Personal images). The company has a page on Wikidata: [6] so it seems like this is nothing but self promotion Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Music school logo, variation or derivative work of this image, should not be uploader's own work WindEwriX (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio per COM:TOO Russia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Possible copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No matter how you look at it "Minnie Mouse" is the subject. It doesn't look like it happened to be in the picture. The copyright of "Minnie Mouse" has not disappeared. This license allows you to make and sell copies of Minnie Mouse using this photo as a material. There is no evidence that The Walt Disney Company Japan admits it. Japan does not have a law that allows fair use. Before being accused of copyright infringement we believe that it should be dealt with appropriately according to the precautionary principle.--211.127.157.57 12:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- lCOM:DW/COM:TOYS in substantial part of the image. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 20th-century photograph, dated 1968. Most likely the photographer of the underlying old photo is not yet dead for at least 50 years. If anonymous, this may be public domain in the Philippines but not in the United States, thanks to COM:URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete; also unclear copyright status. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Researchdata99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like screenshots, no exif, not sure about scope either
- File:Princess Salome Dance in Royal Blue.jpg
- File:Salome as a princess.jpg
- File:Salome seductive dance.jpg
- File:Layla Taj as Salome.jpg
- File:Regal dancer in royal blue.jpg
- File:Salome's regal Dance .jpg
- File:Salome regal dance..jpg
- File:Salome 3.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leoeberlein (talk · contribs)
[edit]personal selfies, out of scope
Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 08:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: F10. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
A version is found here before upload - https://www.facebook.com/ntphilology/photos/a.4410777509007604/4551456728273014/ - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
_in_2021.10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_2021.10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author requests deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
_in_2021.10.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
_in_2021.10.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: Excluded educational content - raw text except for small picture of the author at the start Headlock0225 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Commercial image (with watermark) of Thygesen Textile Vietnam, no indication at https://thygesen.com.vn/pcat/activewear-manufacturer-supplier that images are CC-by-SA, indeed entire focus is on commerce Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Square image which appears online in a few places (such as https//www.reets.com.pk/servicebox/descaling.jpg), crudely extended with photoshop on either side. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Unclear whether this is a photo of an actual T-shirt (in which case it's a straight copyright violation) or one drawn in a very similar naive style based on something like https://gem.app/product/asspizza-asspizza-2017-pumpkin-tee-20-20 (in which case wouldn't that be COM:DERIV/COM:FANART?). Lord Belbury (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The same image has now been uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asspizza_2017_T-Shirt.jpg, credited and sourced to the original artist. So this Commons copy is a copyright violation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Professional-looking photo, fairly low resolution with watermark. Unlikely to be the uploader's own work. -M.nelson (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Google Maps Screenshot (this one) Enyavar (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Google Maps Screenshot Enyavar (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMap screenshot, Copyvio Enyavar (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, not the uploader's own work. Is it {{PD-old}}/etc? -M.nelson (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
empty grey image, not a map (anymore) Enyavar (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this some time ago, it's a derelict placeholder image and can safely be deleted. Erinthecute (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: unlabeled "do-the-labeling-yourself quiz map". Educational value doubtful, unused Enyavar (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: file:Canadarcticislands.gif shows the solution, and this can be used as a learning method. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you say so. I now put them into the same category and Keep. --Enyavar (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you say so. I now put them into the same category and
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Scope. The image is somebody's Discord photo, placed in Category:Monsters, likely meant to demean them. Almost certainly also Not Educationally Useful, given that it's just someone's face in a poor-quality photo. A Lesbian (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly out of scope personal image. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps copyvio Enyavar (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
poor solution, better version of the same picture: File:Li Yuanhong.jpg or File:181039rwtfuxrztrd8f2eg.jpg Kcx36 (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, in use, just tag it with {{Superseded}}. Multichill (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to better version. Redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
As copied from manufacturers website no indicate suitable copyright has been granted Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: No permission unless demonstrated via VRTS. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luca Powell (talk · contribs)
[edit]The files are images uploaded by Luca Powell, in which the user already has a record of uploading 3 copyright violations, 3 files without permission and 1 unfree screenshot (at here). As a result, it is doubted whether the nominated files are genuinely the user's own work, and they should be deleted if no supporting evidence is given.
廣九直通車 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:Facebook Messenger logo 2013.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
إعادة الرفع بالشكل الصحيح وبما يتناسب من حقوق ملكية فكرية AbdullahAlMaani (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, and questionable copyright status. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:Wappen von Falkenberg (Niederbayern).svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:FC Eintracht Rheine Logo.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernelmerano2017 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images. Only uploads by Ernelmerano2017. Plus each of the images contains strange transmission location code suggesting origin from Twitter or some other social media website.
Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original images overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.
- File:BEAUTIFUL BEACH TAKEN BY ERNEL.jpg
- File:PRETTY BEACH.jpg
- File:PTA Meeting.jpg
- File:Christmas Program with Kids.jpg
- File:Scout Training.jpg
- File:READING EVALUATION.jpg
- File:CAMINTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 02:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:Flag-map of Venezuela.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Found online here https://marseille.love-spots.com/balades/loisirs-provence/109270-le-don-du-vent.html before upload. No meaningful exif, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
it seems to be not a self-made photo but a scan of an old one. We need a correct source to prove the license rubin16 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
no source available rubin16 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
the source says nothing about the PUBLICATION date that is important for PD in Russia rubin16 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Use of senseless filters that has obscured the original makes this picture unusable... should be deleted immediately 2405:201:6806:5065:7C1D:AFC8:C51C:77C9 12:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Recently uploaded that is redundant to File:Airport Sign.svg --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should be kept as it's a road sign that's sometimes seen. Bluquail (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how what appears to be a student presentation is in the project's scope; further, it contains a number of images with no clear licensing, which appear to be as usual copied from random places on the Internet. Therefore even through the text can be assumed to be freely licenced, as stated in at the end, it is likely the images in it are copyvios. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
не актуален DemonSebastian (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletin, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
не актуален DemonSebastian (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletin, G7, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use. Article deleted in ruwiki. Drakosh (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
es:Sociedade Micolóxica Lucus is deleted due to missing educational value. Probably the logo is out of project scope. In addition, complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
unused, out of scope – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation. See http://www.vncreatures.net/forumpic/R_speciosus.jpg Clump (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- :)) ?? You want to blocked me at wikimedia commons ? Vantrata (?????) 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- But i know a little english because i'm from vietnam : )) Vantrata (?????) 14:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, you can delete image Vantrata (?????) 14:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: 17:30, 12 February 2022, by MPF (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RDominguezHernandez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused and not useful to the project.
Ytoyoda (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Virat Korada (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused website images uploaded by non-contribution user.
- File:Envelope1.png
- File:Phone1.png
- File:Globe1.png
- File:Header 2.png
- File:Footer 2.png
- File:Footer 1.jpg
- File:Header 1.jpg
Netora (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo is taken from the house's nomination form for the National Register of Historic Places. It is doubtful that it is the uploaders own work, and therefore a copyright violation. Farragutful (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo is taken from the house's nomination form for the National Register of Historic Places. It is doubtful that it is the uploaders own work, and therefore a copyright violation. Farragutful (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
File EXIF shows "Author SL ANAND Copyright holder www.slanand.com". VRT permission needed. MKFI (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AndrésRayo343 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Canutos.jpg
- File:San Andrés.jpg
- File:Pino baterno.jpg
- File:Orejas.jpg
- File:Morro baterno.jpg
- File:Cartel baterno.jpg
- File:Virgen del Fuego.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, several taken from FB. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from designs. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fabio Roffinott (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused promo materials of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This file doesn’t respect the Creative Common license. It’s taken from an unknown source. (also it’s quiet ugly, and another one exists) Danilodambre (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Danilodambre: Have you checked my user talk page where a deletion request was already made and canceled? The source is no more available on this page but you can check on the source code of the page available on The Internet Archive that the Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license of the original video is actually respected by this file, contrary to what you seem to claim. Also, I do not understand what exactly you find ugly in this photograph. However, I'm happy if it motivated you to upload another picture one year later.
- I'd be happy to know if you have a solution to avoid having this file again nominated for deletion. This is starting to be quite annoying to get such requests (same thing with Suzanne Clément, with two unsuccessful deletion requests, see my user talk page) and I do not know how to proceed to avoid this. --FreeCorp (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @FreeCorp: Hello. The original video was removed from Vimeo because the ownership claim was false. The CC license wasn’t given by the owner of the video. I understand your point of view, but your source isn’t legit. Could you please remove the picture? --[[User:Danilodambre|Danilodambre(talk) 12:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Considering the reason given above about a wrong use of the CC license in the source. FreeCorp (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Same. Danilodambre (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diegobcardenas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Gamero DT Millonarios.jpg
- File:Carlos Queiroz DT Colombia.jpg
- File:Hinchada del Unión Magdalena.jpg
- File:Procateldral de Nuestra Señora de Líbano (Bogotá).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diegobcardenas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
- File:Escudobriceño.gif
- File:Escudo de Tocancipá.gif
- File:Escudo de soata-1-.jpg
- File:Escudo-paz-de-rio.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diegobcardenas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Jozo Zovko.jpg
- File:Rafael Dudamel Campeon Deportivo Cali 2021 II.jpg
- File:Estudio Principal Canal 1.jpg
- File:Casa de los Comuneros.jpg
- File:RTVDH.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diegobcardenas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Escudo Cali Sin Deportivo.png
- File:Escudo 2 Union Magdalena.png
- File:Escudo Deportes Quindio.svg
- File:Salvacion Nacional.jpg
- File:Logo Amber Capital.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marta Orsola CasaCiccaMuseum (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
These are published comic characters (https://www.instagram.com/p/CVmuhjcMOna/), but unclear if this is a possible copyright violation or COM:FANART. Or the artist uploading under a pseudonym and not crediting themselves... Lord Belbury (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sono Dino Sechi disegnatore di Tash e Trash l’immagine è mia, è la prima volta che carico su wikipedia Cro111 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. If uploader is indeed the author, then follow procedure at COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
out of project scope, used for nonsense article on nl-wikipedia no petrmission no source Hoyanova (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
_pyramid_(structure)_on_January,_1st,_2022.png){kind=link}
_pyramid_(structure)_on_January,_1st,_2022.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Rosstat data on fertility and mortality for 2021 will be published only in February. It is too early to publish the population as of January 1, 2022. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- In principle the nominator has right. However because only one week remains till February I would consider a violation as minor and keep the file (an alternative is to delete and to very soon restore which is inconvenient). --Mikisavex (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Mikisavex (but if the data is only published in Feb., how is this graph accurate/up-to-date???). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
нарушение авторских прав 95.31.191.213 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Historical photo, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
._1960-%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._1960-%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8B.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
нарушение авторских прав 95.31.191.213 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Historical photo, missing essential info:. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
._1956_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._1956_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
нарушение авторских прав 95.31.191.213 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Historical photo, missing essential info:. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Credited to Stephen Huang, no evidence of permission
Ytoyoda (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
1973 painting by an artist (Samuel Bak) who is still alive. Not the own work of the uploader. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I didnt upload the painting. The photo is my own work- please suggest how you would like me to denote it.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The photo is your work, but the painting is Samuel Bak's work. You cannot legally release the image under a CC-Attribution licence without Bak's permission. See Commons:Derivative works.
- There is no way to denote that you are releasing someone else's work under a CC licence without their permission. I raised this discussion in case there was some extenuating circumstance, if it is on public outdoor display in a country with freedom of panorama laws, if you have Bak's permission or he is on record as releasing it into the public domain, if you yourself are Bak, if I am mistaken and Bak actually died 80 years ago, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lord Belbury. as you can see from my files i ve so far never uploaded photos of indoor American art work . so the only way to keep the file is to get Bak´s permission ? I will even try that ! -:)--Wuerzele (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like it. Does seem unlikely that an artist would allow one of his paintings to be freely reused commercially, but good luck: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder has guidance on how to go about that.
- The other route to go down for illustrating a Wikipedia article (if that's your main goal here) is to use a small thumbnail of a painting under fair use to support critical commentary on that painting, without releasing it under any kind of licence, which Bak's Wikipedia article is already doing for his work "The Family". --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Edit conflict: I saw that the existing photo on Samuel Bak The_Family is licensed under Fair use. I read on Commons:Derivative worksthat Fair use arguments are not allowed on Commons. So how is this possible and how can I change the file ? Thanks for helping me out here.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and reupload ?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- "The Family" isn't on Commons, it's on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%27The_Family%27,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_Samuel_Bak,_1974,_private_collection.jpg). You could delete the Commons image and reupload a lower resolution version to Wikipedia, but would have to make a case there for why it's fair use, particularly since Wikipedia asks that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" (and there's already one painting in the article). If you feel that it's a better representation of Bak's work than The Family, you could remove The Family from the article and add the Blue Angel painting in its place. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lord Belbury. as you can see from my files i ve so far never uploaded photos of indoor American art work . so the only way to keep the file is to get Bak´s permission ? I will even try that ! -:)--Wuerzele (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a cropped/watermarked version of photo at https://yoursbulletin.com/is-emerging-technology-redefining-management-education/ Ytoyoda (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork by non-notable artist. Out of scope - no likely educational or historical value. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Drakula1010 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No longer exist alex15877 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Person died in 2010, so "own work 2021" can't be correct. Encycloon (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not own work but photo/scan of existing photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:Bandera de Benavente.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The page arleady exists at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_L%C3%A9on_Bonnat (with the same objective) Niketto sr. (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
incorrect, preliminary version (the sun must have 18 rays) 1-Byte (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Original deleted. See File:Paul J Meyer Portrait.jpg Wouter (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Fails COM:TOO and questionable sourcing - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: 06:21, 27 January 2022, by Fitindia (No permission since 16 January 2022). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no proof that the logo is available under a free license. There is a copyright mark on the site. GAndy (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No evidence for a "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication" on the source page 2A02:810D:4AC0:37D4:1C45:1559:B7D5:78D3 20:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Spam: pictures related to a non-notable music group "P44" which were uploaded by a user with username "Dennie.p44", probably a member. See also File:П-44 лого.jpg, File:Квартирник П-44.jpg, File:П-44 NAZAROV Studio.jpg, File:П-44 "МОГЛО БЫТЬ ХУЖЕ".jpg. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, all out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Smkaifcmto (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission for any image. taken from internet.
- File:Amit shah tweet on me.png
- File:S.m Kaif at cbi headquarter.jpg
- File:S.m Kaif aka shaikh bhaiyya.jpg
- File:Logo of Trip healer.jpg
Afifa Afrin (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No proof of free license, copyright watermark IJReid (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MicheleOSM3 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this?
- File:Pannello informativo Cammino Mariano presso le Malghe di Porzus (Id 3527).jpg
- File:Cartello CAI 708 718 Bivio 704 Forc Tacia (Id 7412).jpg
- File:Cartello informativo a Ledis (Id 7413).jpg
- File:Cartello informativo sulla valle del Rio Cadramazzo (Id 4223).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why? Is not a work of art, a form of architecture, nor is it protected by copyright. MicheleOSM3 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Maps, photos and texts are protected by copyrights. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - taken in Italy where there is no FOP - excepted one file kept as only simple direction signs are depicted. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
it is actually an old coat of arms of costa rica, of which there are already better versions, and this is tagged as something of madrid and amazonas!!?!? Roqz (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - also unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Artist died in 1969, undelete in 2040. Is public domain in the US so could be locally hosted on English Wikipedia. Abzeronow (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely not own work, and therefore not authorized. The symbol part of the logo looks to me to rise above the TOO. The website of the organization that operates Petrozavodskmash has a copyright notice on their website that appears to claim copyright in all materials on the website. 69.174.144.79 23:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Fails COM:TOO and questionable sourcing - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Fails COM:TOO and questionable sourcing - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for participating in Deletion Requests and for assuming good faith in my decision. If you disagree, please visit COMMONS:Undeletion requests before you visit my talk page. Thanks and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
unclear license status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: 作者请求删除自己的作品
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7-speedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tyg728 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: 请求删除的原因：G7. 作者或上傳者請求刪除
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7-speedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Tiedoston (valokuvan) käyttöön ei ole valokuvaajan kirjallista lupaa. Kirjarakas (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as the nomination was done by the uploader I conclude that it was wrongly tagged as own work. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely not own work: this looks like a stitched satellite image. Low-res web sized image. P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, user has since replaced the stitched satellite photo with a different one that exists elsewhere online (eg. https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/26253814/photos/524476676?_set_bev_on_new_domain=1643210323_MzVlMGQ5NGU2NDI2&guests=1&adults=1). --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
blatant homophobia, no use to wiki 72.84.232.91 03:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: In use on it:wp. --Achim55 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete this has absolutely no place on Wikimedia. It has no value and it is a self made, homophobic, hateful slur that creates a volatile environment for editors and readers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also not in use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
has no educational or informational use and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
serves no educational or informational purpose and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- It definitely has no purpose, it's just there to show homophobia. Adrianmartinezuwu (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
serves no educational or informational purpose and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
serves no educational or information purpose and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
serves no educational or informational purpose and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
serves no educational or informational purpose and is blatantly homophobic Sillypilled (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
While the composition is in public domain, the performance is recent and source video has a Standard YouTube License which is not allowed. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Music. MKFI (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of permission. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 9 Gorofil (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 8 Gorofil (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 7 Gorofil (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 6 Gorofil (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 5 Gorofil (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 4 Gorofil (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 3 Gorofil (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 2 Gorofil (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jankowo. Pałac z 1880 r. 1.jpg, please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Powinien mieć nazwę: Dobieszewice. Dwór z pierwszej połowy XIX wieku 1 Gorofil (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- This and your other ones Keep. No reason for deletion. Filenames can be changed -> Commons:File_renaming -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Please request specific new file name following guidelines at Commons:File renaming. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Niewłaściwa nazwa pliku Gorofil (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As before. --Rosenzweig τ 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
No proof of ownership or permission to release under a free license. Copyright is owned by the Alliance Party for Progress. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete If its copyrighted, then I'm okay with it being deleted User:Gemini.skywalker User talk:Gemini.skywalker 02:30 PM , 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Of low quality and resolution. Has been globally replaced by File:DEU Faid COA.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Warum? Es war mal Konsens, dass trotz Vektorisierung die Dateien mit eingescannten "Quellgrafiken" erhalten bleiben sollten. Fränsmer (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We don't delete raster images just because there's now also a vector version available. --Rosenzweig τ 08:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems like a slightly inferior version of File:Planet stories Spring 1942 cover.jpg. The resolution is a bit smaller and the bottom is cut. If deleted, please make sure to merge categories, description and change the usage on Wikipedia to the superior version. Ping me and I can do it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: different enought to keep both. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no source (No source since) which is absolutely correct. However, this looks to be old enough to be able to be kept if we only had some information from the uploader such as "name of book this came from" and "Where did you find the picture?" Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per [7], it's a 19th century lithography. --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Konstantin Chernenko. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The pic is extracted from another file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82.jpg), shouldnt that also be in deletion then? FMSky (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- No. Carefully re-read the previous discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Russian official documents may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document – like this photo. --Rosenzweig τ 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
@Rosenzweig: this should probably also be deleted then: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%A3%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82_(cropped).jpg --FMSky (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Yes. --Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as no source (No source since), but it appears to be a cave church fresco from a very long time ago. Changing to Nomination in an effort to keep image or find suitable replacement if this one for some reason cannot be kept. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Potential copyright violation. Missing EXIF data and low image resolution. Furthermore, since other photos, which were uplaoded by this uploader, were verified by VRTS ticket:2014012710005916, this photo may also related to that VRTS ticket. SCP-2000 05:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per en:Cave Church, Rsovci the fresco dates from 13th century, so it is in Public Domain. Imho it is a copy of a 2D painting. If somebody would argument this is a 3D object, it can be cropped to remove the rocks. Ellywa (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC). --Ellywa (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mattbr as Dw no source since (dw no source since) which is correct, but it's unlikely that an image of a gent who died in 1930 is 100% certain to still be under copyright. Hoping the original uploader joins the conversation to help us understand and keep this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The work is not subject to copyright because the copyright is expired. The original painting exists in one copy and I am the owner of that painting. Permatts (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Permatts: : Absolutely do not disagree with you. Painter's name and dates, please? Also any more info you have about the painting because it will help fill in the template. Date of original work, etc. Thank you ever so much for replying. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've looked at the picture again and the painter is not mentioned on it. A date is writen och the backside of the cardboard: 1/12-31 - meaning December 1st, 1931.
- I believe it is a b/w photo, which have been coloured by hand. Permatts (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. As the photographer is unknown it is not clear if the image is in public domain. It is also not known if and when the image was first published. Therefore the photo must be deleted. Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template the photo can be undeleted safely 120 years after the image was made, which will be not later than 1931+121=2052.. --Ellywa (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Seemingly image of company logo and therefore not public domain. Would likely be okay for Englsih Wikipedia fair use Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: COM:TOO Brazil is pretty high. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of 1234qwer1234 and the example of COM:TOO Brazil. --Ellywa (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tiziano zarri (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images appear to be screenshots of an Instagram story
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta presentación 5.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta presentación 4.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta presentación 3.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta presentación 2.jpg
- File:Camiseta de Thiago Prieto Acosta .jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta Profesional del fútbol sala.jpg
- File:Foto de Thiago Prieto Acosta jugador de San Lorenzo de Almagro junto a la palabra resiliencia.png
- File:Foto de Thiago Prieto Acosta Jugador de San Lorenzo de Almagro futsal.jpg
- File:Foto del Thiago Prieto Acosta Jugador de San Lorenzo de Almagro futsal.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta Jugador de San Lorenzo de Almagro futsal.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom - Fma12 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tiziano zarri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta con el "10".jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta Foto Oficial.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta foto San Lorenzo de Almagro.jpg
- File:Thiago Prieto Acosta independiente de Avellaneda .jpg
Timtrent (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of these images. Dear uploader, if you made some of these images by yourself please upload the unedited versions again with the complete exif data, or ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. --Ellywa (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Springfield, Virginia is just a census-designated place so I don't see how it could possibly have an official flag. This appears to be a joke based on the thing Springfield is best known for, highway interchanges. Whether the creator is perpetrating the hoax or fell for someone else's, I don't know. But given this has been around for seven years and appears in numerous articles on multiple wikis, I thought it best to start discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep The image page cites FOTW, which in turn cites this link (now dead, archive link used instead): https://web.archive.org/web/20100104103738/http://www.springfieldchamber.org/gscc/main/springfieldchamber.nsf/content/flag. That page seems legitimate enough to me, and describes the given flag. One could question whether or not the chamber of commerce for a CDP has the authority to designate a flag, but it seems reasonable enough to me, and it could at least be considered an unofficial flag. They even offer to sell the flag on that page. The real problem with this file is that it appears to be a mediocre automatic vectorization with minimal cleanup, leading to the straight edges approximating the curves, and potentially the fact that it's not aligned with the viewbox, but those aren't reasons to delete, just reasons to fix the image. Eiim (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The file is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. You can rename it, or could make a note on the file page. --Ellywa (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The shape of the so-called Insignia isn't official as the municipality's official site depicts the real version. Onur (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This request is baseless. Please read this: Template:Coa blazon. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but they don't use an European-style CoA, nor the municipality use your "baseless" shape in any occasion. Onur (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Support It make sense. This is the logo of Ankara municipality not a insignia. In Turkey every municipality has their own logo but they're not like insignias of European countries. This is just an independent work.--Sabri76 10:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)- Support This logo is not an insignia of the municipality. Support this. Chansey (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I suggest keeping but editing it to the current form in the the municipality's official site. Kavas (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Ssolbergj is right. does'nt create copyright infringement. original state.. Seyfioncu (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Creative original and different from the original no additional copyright is required for city emblems Pivox (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Kept, it does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the file is. It is used in more than 40 projects and can be deleted only due to copyright reasons. Taivo (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AlasdairEdits as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It's not official emblem. Therefore Ankara hasn't an official COA Jelican9 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright issue, the CC BY license is bogus here. If it is in Public Domain please add the right PD license tag instead of the CC license. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As Taivo said, "it does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the file is. It is used in more than 40 projects and can be deleted only due to copyright reasons." Besides, it is original enough to not be considered as infringing on copyright. Flagvisioner (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete COM:DW of the copyrighted work. However, the emblem may meet {{Legislation-TR}} possibility. SCP-2000 06:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that this image is in PD. Uploader(s) that not provide a source, which is required per COM:EVID. One version (there are two versions as there has been an edit war on the file) has been on shutterstock since 2018, as can be learned with a search on TinEye. So I think the image must be deleted because of copyright violation. --Ellywa (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ytoyoda as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: From https://www.dirtrider.com/features/141_0405_mcgrath_hawaii_adventure/
Comverted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The external hit is from 2009, whereas our image was uploaded to :en in 2008 already. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that — I based by tagging on the Commons upload date. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, exif data are from 2004, appears original photo. --Ellywa (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not own work, sources unknown.
- File:Cox vandaag.jpg
- File:Sailors folder klein.jpg
- File:Ticketbook Virginia Sailors 1966.jpg
- File:Sailors workout.jpg
- File:Sailors logo.jpg
- File:Speelschema Virginia Sailors 1966.jpg
- File:Annapolis Sailors - Wilmington Clippers.jpg
- File:Annapolis Sailors - Wilmington Clippers 1965.jpg
- File:Logo NAFL.jpg
- File:NAFL logo.jpg
- File:Sailors folder.jpg
- File:Kampioen Virginia Sailors in 1966..jpg
- File:Virginia-sailors-pro-football 1 c428c18cb85be963d82fab99007b6b39.jpg
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible for: File:Ticketbook Virginia Sailors 1966.jpg File:Annapolis Sailors - Wilmington Clippers.jpg and File:Annapolis Sailors - Wilmington Clippers 1965.jpg PD-no notice for File:Sailors folder.jpg and File:Speelschema Virginia Sailors 1966.jpg --RAN (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion deleted 10, kept 5. --Ellywa (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Unclear licensing status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. See the archive page at vk.com/semenovborisphoto (in Russian). --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now this file has the tag that it is reviewed by reviewer. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- These photos cannot be uploaded. There is no confirmation of ownership of the works of the deceased photographer by persons who have installed the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationa license on vk.com/semenovborisphoto. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is a clear and unambiguous reference to the CC BY-SA license on the Boris Semenov photo archive page. Why can't we upload photos from this archive to the Commons if we use the License review procedure? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- These photos cannot be uploaded. There is no confirmation of ownership of the works of the deceased photographer by persons who have installed the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationa license on vk.com/semenovborisphoto. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now this file has the tag that it is reviewed by reviewer. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Поскольку @номинатор владеет русским языком, см. w:ru:Обсуждение участника:1.b2-b4, то позволю себе писать по-русски. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Итак, если я правильно понял, то номинатор на удаление пишет, что нужно ещё доказать, что владелец сайта vk.com/semenovborisphoto обладает правами на этот архив, чтобы указывать открытую лицензию на странице архива. У меня есть два аргумента:
- процедура License review перекладывает ответственность на внешний ресурс, будь то YouTube или flickr, и проверяющий не обязан спрашивать паспорт у человека, загрузившего контент на внешний ресурс;
- в Интернете есть две страницы (группа ВКонтакта и группа Facebook, обе указаны на странице загруженных фотографий), где есть фотографии Бориса Семенова в количестве нескольких тысяч или десятков тысяч с сотнями комментариев людей, опознающих кого-либо из сфотографированных людей тех лет. И на обеих страницах владелец архива (дочь фотографа Бориса Семенова — Яна Семенова, User:Yana Semenova) указала открытую лицензию. Других страниц или сайтов в Интернете, содержащих архив фотографий Бориса Семенова я не знаю. Если знаете, то укажите такие сайты. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This license could not be installed by the author of the works, who died before the creation of this archive. The verification procedure only confirms the presence of a license installed on the site, but does not confirm the legitimacy of installing a license.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ну и хорошо. Если у кого-то есть обоснованные сомнения - пусть их выскажет. Пока их нет, нет и оснований удалять файлы или требовать у кого-то доказательств.
Мы не требуем доказательств у авторов, которые публикуют здесь свои фото по свободной лицензии, мы не требуем доказательств у бота, который автоматически загружает свободные фото с Фликра или Панорамио. Совершенно неясно, почему для других источников должн быть другие правила. Это нарушало бы принципы свободной культуры. --Kaganer (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ну и хорошо. Если у кого-то есть обоснованные сомнения - пусть их выскажет. Пока их нет, нет и оснований удалять файлы или требовать у кого-то доказательств.
- This license could not be installed by the author of the works, who died before the creation of this archive. The verification procedure only confirms the presence of a license installed on the site, but does not confirm the legitimacy of installing a license.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Noination without distinct reasons. "Unclear licensing status" is not applicable for this case. --Kaganer (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we do not require proof from the authors who publish their photos here under a free license. In this case, under a free license, the works of the author are published, who has not explicitly indicated anywhere his permission to publish his works. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I think, you are wrong. On the resource mentioned, it is quite clearly indicated that the author of the pictures died, so his daughter inherited the photos. She, as a full heir and owner of the photos, can dispose of them at her own discretion and indicate the license she wants. Are you challenging her rights? Avsolov (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am sure you are wrong. There is no evidence that she is the only full-fledged heir. According to the information presented on the site vk.com/semenovborisphoto we see that the photographer has more children and a wife.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Still, you bothered to look at the source and make sure that these photos were not uploaded on behalf of strangers.
Boris Semenov died in 2000. It's been 22 years. All the inheritance that could be divided has long been divided. The limitation period for inheritance cases according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is 3 years. There is no reason to believe that Yana Semenova has no rights to dispose of her father's photographs. Let's not get into the private life of the heirs. Avsolov (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- Yana Semenova will be able to upload photos of her father to Wikimedia Commons only by providing evidence of her rights to the creative heritage of her parent. Wikimedia Commons has such rules.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Negligence in obtaining a license when uploading a file File:1 20170519 0011 copy.jpg, the author of which Yana Semyonova could not be, raises doubts about the integrity of this participant.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @1.b2-b4, please don't divert the discussion. If you think that another file should be deleted, please nominate the suspicious file for deletion. Thanks for understanding. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why are you not embarrassed by the distraction of the discussion on statute of limitations for inheritance cases under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation?--1.b2-b4 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is directly related to the photo in question. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why are you not embarrassed by the distraction of the discussion on statute of limitations for inheritance cases under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation?--1.b2-b4 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @1.b2-b4, please don't divert the discussion. If you think that another file should be deleted, please nominate the suspicious file for deletion. Thanks for understanding. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should imagine themselves to be such a "copyright police". Not here, not on Wikimedia. Nobody has to prove anything to us. Wikimedia Commons just one free culture resource, even if it is (perhaps) the largest. Therefore: OR you have good reasons to challenge the rights of the author's daughter to publish under a free license (and you clearly formulate them here), OR you withdraw your nomination as unfounded. --Kaganer (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Still, you bothered to look at the source and make sure that these photos were not uploaded on behalf of strangers.
- I am sure you are wrong. There is no evidence that she is the only full-fledged heir. According to the information presented on the site vk.com/semenovborisphoto we see that the photographer has more children and a wife.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- In general, there is two different cases:
1) "private way", when non-public heir sends permission to the VRTS to publish under a free license. I know that in this case - agents often require supporting documents for the right to inherit and are sometimes overly demanding.
2) "public way", when someone appears as a public figure as the heir and representative of the deceased author. In this case, if there is no evidence in the public space that the right to inherit was contested by someone, and at the same time the free license was also announced publicly, there is no reason to require any additional confirmation and evidence. --Kaganer (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we do not require proof from the authors who publish their photos here under a free license. In this case, under a free license, the works of the author are published, who has not explicitly indicated anywhere his permission to publish his works. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @User:AKA MBG, рlease do not involve interested russian-speaking participants who are friendly to you in this discussion. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hypothesis that Alexander Savin is my friend :) Unfortunately, I have not yet met him in person. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- А почему, собственно говоря, не нужно? Женя, Вы же сами "русскоязычный спикер", не так ли? Судя по Вашему вкладу в ру-вики... Почему бы и другим не поучаствовать в обсуждении вашей номинации? --Kaganer (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Does Boris Semenov have heir(s)? This is right place to ask permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Я не совсем понял вопрос. Вот ровно наследница автора эти работы и публикует. И она же прислала разрешение в VRT. --Kaganer (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- А она единственная наследница? Для уточнения подобных деталей и нужен VRT. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Поэтому-то я их и отговаривал писать в в VRT. Нет разумных причин никого в эти вопросы посвящать. Нет повода для выяснений. --Kaganer (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- А она единственная наследница? Для уточнения подобных деталей и нужен VRT. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Я не совсем понял вопрос. Вот ровно наследница автора эти работы и публикует. И она же прислала разрешение в VRT. --Kaganer (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko - Ну и главное, тема VRT вообще в стороне, забудем про нее. Исходно фото опубликованы в открытом источнике, лицензия указана. Никаких обоснованных сомнений в том, что публикатор имеет право на публикацию, я так и не увидел. С какой стати кто-то должен нам что-то доказывать? Это убивает весь смысл свободных лицензий. --Kaganer (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Andrew Krizhanovsky, can you please indicate where I can find the licencing on the source? I could not find it. I did find it on the facebook page, but that is possibly not the source of this photo. Ellywa (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @Ellywa, thank you for your question. You tried the correct place: Facebook group. If you click the text "See more" in the section "About" then you will see the text, which ends with the phrase "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru" --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Andrew Krizhanovsky, thanks for confirming. Is this particular image available on the facebook account? I do not think we can assume the licence is also valid on images from https://vk.com/semenovborisphoto vk.com/semenovborisphoto . Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Ellywa, this photo is available in this album (163 photos, see at the end of list). You will see the difference. Photos in Facebook have a label "This photo from archive B. Semenov" (in Russian). The photo uploaded to Commons does not have this label, because I explained to Yana Semenova that photos without labels are more welcome at Wikipedia and Commons. So, she uploaded the original photo without any labels. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Andrew Krizhanovsky, thanks for confirming. Is this particular image available on the facebook account? I do not think we can assume the licence is also valid on images from https://vk.com/semenovborisphoto vk.com/semenovborisphoto . Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @Ellywa, thank you for your question. You tried the correct place: Facebook group. If you click the text "See more" in the section "About" then you will see the text, which ends with the phrase "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru" --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, no valid reason for deletion, source has compatible CC license that was checked and confirmed, uploader there and here is said to be heiress of author. --Rosenzweig τ 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @Rosenzweig, please, could you remove the {{delete}} tag from the page in question? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Rosenzweig τ 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
File:Actors of the Drama Theater of Karelia Konstantin Pilipenko Lyudmila Filippovna Zhivykh 1972 003182.jpg
[edit]
Unclear licensing status 1.b2-b4 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. See the archive page at vk.com/semenovborisphoto (in Russian). --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now this file has the tag that it is reviewed by reviewer. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- These photos cannot be uploaded. There is no confirmation of ownership of the works of the deceased photographer by persons who have installed the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationa license on vk.com/semenovborisphoto. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is a clear and unambiguous reference to the CC BY-SA license on the Boris Semenov photo archive page. Why can't we upload photos from this archive to the Commons if we use the License review procedure? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This license could not be installed by the author of the works, who died before the creation of this archive. The verification procedure only confirms the presence of a license installed on the site, but does not confirm the legitimacy of installing a license.--1.b2-b4 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is a clear and unambiguous reference to the CC BY-SA license on the Boris Semenov photo archive page. Why can't we upload photos from this archive to the Commons if we use the License review procedure? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- These photos cannot be uploaded. There is no confirmation of ownership of the works of the deceased photographer by persons who have installed the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationa license on vk.com/semenovborisphoto. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Now this file has the tag that it is reviewed by reviewer. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @User:AKA MBG, рlease do not involve interested russian-speaking participants who are friendly to you in this discussion. --1.b2-b4 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Does Boris Semenov have heir(s)? This is right place to ask permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment @AKA MBG: I found the image at [8], but I didn't see a CC license reference for this group at VK.com. Is it hidden somewhere? --Rosenzweig τ 22:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: , thank you for your question. I see at the page of this photo the confirmed tag LicenseReview in January 2022. I think that during this long discussion Yana Semenova (gave up and) decided that it will be difficult and impossible to upload photos to Commons, and removed this CC-BY text. I asked her today to return CC-BY text to VK.com, because it is very possible that the Wikimedia Commons community will decide that she has the right to upload photos of her father to Commons... --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The text is back; I closed the DR. --Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
See also
[edit]
See the similar nomination at File:Actor of the Drama Theater of Karelia Igor Mikhailovich Rumyantsev 09-10.1978 003184.jpg --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment VRT agent (verify): Problem is this: the copyright holder use to be the photographer, not the subject, but the family of the subjects use to ignore this point. Now, is there a way to know who is the photographer of these files? --Ganímedes (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganímedes: I don't understand what you mean. Aren't these files photographs by Boris Semenov (so he is the photographer) uploaded by his daughter Yana Semenova? --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- My mistake; just ignore me. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganímedes: I don't understand what you mean. Aren't these files photographs by Boris Semenov (so he is the photographer) uploaded by his daughter Yana Semenova? --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, no valid reason for deletion, source has compatible CC license that was checked and confirmed, uploader there and here is said to be heiress of author. --Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
a same file already exists please delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupturestriker (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19. Jan. 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
