Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/02/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![34 File:"Maggie und die Stadt der Diebe".jpg](#File:"Maggie_und_die_Stadt_der_Diebe".jpg){kind=link}
![35 File:Cover "Tara und Tahnee".jpg](#File:Cover_"Tara_und_Tahnee".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2004.jpg){kind=link}
2003.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(2001).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(2002).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1993).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1987).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1978).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1957).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1962).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_Cámara_(1960).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright to this image belongs to the Nulhegan Band of Coosuk Abenaki https://abenakitribe.org/ Indigenous girl (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, false license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
copyright belongs to the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki https://abenakitribe.org/ Indigenous girl (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; COM:CV, fraudulent claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo belongs to Don Stevens, Chief of the Nulhegan Band of Coosuk Abenaki. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo was taken from here https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/chief-don-stevens-represents-a-new-era-of-abenaki-leadership-in-vermont/Content?oid=29751810 Indigenous girl (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; COM:CV. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo belongs to Lake Champlain Maritime Museum as you can see it properly attributed here https://sokokisojourn.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/bringing-together-two-sides-of-vermont/ Indigenous girl (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation; uploader even cropped off attribution. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This photo was taken from this article https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/chief-don-stevens-represents-a-new-era-of-abenaki-leadership-in-vermont/Content?oid=29751810 Indigenous girl (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, claimed license not seen at source, apparent copyright violation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This map was taken from here https://vmba.org/the-land-we-ride-on/ Indigenous girl (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This map was taken from here https://vmba.org/the-land-we-ride-on/ Indigenous girl (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
wrong picture AJ Publications (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Found all over the web. Unlikely to be own work or free. BRP ever 01:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; unlikely uploader has sole authority to license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
out of Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 00:14, 1 February 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo --Krdbot 02:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Auguspedia (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: File page with no file. --Achim55 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Low quality, useless photo. Solomon203 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; also COM:DW. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unlikely own work by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys at 22:12, 1 February 2022 UTC: Commons:Project scope --Krdbot 02:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without explanation, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- The image demonstrates a typical random number generation scheme. This was via PariGP, well-respected CAS/number theory software. The image clearly shows the types of non-random patterns that can be seen with such RNGs. But do as you wish...Billymac00 (talk) Billymac00 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Image is used for self-promotional purposes. In any case, possible COI involved. Aasim (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 19:18, 2 February 2022 UTC: CSD F10 (personal photos out of COM:SCOPE --Krdbot 08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. In addition I suspect, that the coat of arms is incorrect; we have no other source than own work. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete (nominated the file for speedy deletion). Taivo (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Buttons from 1962 to 1979 but not able to be retained as they are COM:DW.
- File:1979 Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
- File:1977 Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
- File:1976 Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
- File:1974 Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
- File:1972 Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
- File:1962 Michigan Tech Winter Carnival Logo.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep PD-US-no notice for up to 1977 inclusive, and PD-US-1978-89 for any that are within those years. You have to have the copyright symbol displayed to get copyright protection up until 1977. From 1977 to 1989 you were given 5 years from the date of distribution to register with the copyright office. For the 1979 button, I have looked through the registrations from 1979 to 1985 and see books, movies, and magazine articles among other things, but nothing described as Winter Carnival. Winter Carnival may be trademarked, but not copyrighted. Or is your argument that the copyright is held by Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Collections because a button has a third dimension? --RAN (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)- Keep VRT received permission per Ticket:2022020110008409. --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep due to the existence of a sufficient OTRS ticket. --Mosbatho (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MoudyAlarbe963 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Gallery of images which do not appear to be work of uploader, collages, fashion shots, etc. Unlikely own work due to professional images being duplicated in the collages and the entire gallery appears to be out of Scope as well as a copyright issue.
- File:MOHANAD ZIAD.jpg
- File:MOHANAD SAHAR.jpg
- File:MOHANAD NOURA.jpg
- File:مهند وزهرة.jpg
- File:Mohanad Zahra.jpg
- File:مهند ونوره.jpg
- File:Mohanad The Hanin.jpg
- File:Mohanad The Sarah.jpg
- File:Mohanad Nagham.jpg
- File:مودي العربي.jpg
- File:Marsel Ziad 4.jpg
- File:مودي العربي 3.jpg
- File:Marsel Ziad 3.jpg
- File:Marsel Ziad 2.jpg
- File:مودي العربي 2.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kadıköylü (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subhamjagat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos
- File:RED BEAUTY .jpg
- File:Laxmi devi maa.jpg
- File:Sushant singh's new shoot... .jpg
- File:Devi bina .jpg
- File:Maa kalike.jpg
- File:Indian Saraswati .jpg
- File:Subhm Jagat Logo.jpg
- File:One side a mother and one side a daughter.jpg
- File:Subham 123.jpg
- File:Tukai Subham Assam.jpg
- File:Tukai subham.jpg
- File:Subham jagat Tinsukia assam.jpg
- File:Subham jagat tsk.jpg
- File:Subham jagat 23.jpg
- File:Subham Jagat tinsukia.jpg
- File:Subham jagat tinsukia.jpg
- File:Subham Jagat (10).jpg
- File:Subham Jagat (3).jpg
- File:Subham Jagat (4).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Afifa Afrin (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional/advertising images, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. And likely not own works: greatly disparate quality and sizes, missing or inconsistent EXIF data (6 different cameras).
- File:FORDAMGSHUWAIKHUSED.jpg
- File:AMGSHUWAIKHQLCAFE.JPG
- File:AMGSHUWAIKHQLINT.JPG
- File:FORDAMGSHUWAIKHWAITING.JPG
- File:FORDAMGSHUWAIKHSERVICE.JPG
- File:FORDAMGAHMADIBS.JPG
- File:FORDAMGJAHRARECEPTION.jpg
- File:FORDAMGAHMADISHOWROOMEXT.JPG
- File:FORDAMGJAHRASHOWROOMEXT.jpg
- File:AMGQUICKLANEJAHRAHR.JPG
- File:AMGQUICKLANEAHMADIHR.JPG
- File:AMGQUICKLANESHUWAIKHHR.JPG
- File:AMGKUWAITLOGO.png
- File:AMGJAHRASERVICE.jpg
- File:AMGQUICKLANEAHMADI.jpg
- File:QL SH 10.jpg
- File:FORDAMGSHUWAIKHSHOWROOM.jpg
- File:FORDAMGJAHRASHOWROOM.jpg
- File:FORDAMGAHMADISHOWROOM.JPG
- File:FORDAMG AHMADI SHOWROOM.JPG
- File:Dhari.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
File page without file. Leonel Sohns 16:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect. The CH2 and the OH are in the wrong positions. I have created File:Cedrenol.svg as a replacement. Innerstream (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as we have correct replacement, there is no need to keep this file. Wostr (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, no need to keep low-quality & incorrect files as there is a high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 22:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
no educational purpose recognizable 2003:DA:1704:DE5D:94A3:8CA9:66D:F51F 17:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If you can recognize them, who is it? --RAN (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, even if the photo is useful for summer fashion worn by women in Europe in 2012. --Rosenzweig τ 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-UK-unknown --RAN (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. If you want to use {{PD-UK-unknown}}, you need to "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". I don't see this done, nor do I have enough information to keep the image. --Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a professional media photo; unlikely to be the uploader's own work. -M.nelson (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; pcp. --Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
F10 - archivo para borrar 191.125.166.29 00:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No parece trabajo propio (FACEBOOK) 191.125.166.29 00:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE promo material for a university Gikü (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Uploader did not create item depicted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No indication of own work. Facebook or smaller sizes.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: contains nothing educational other than raw text, see COM:SCOPE. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks more like a screenshot than our user was at the Eurovision on stage. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: a screenshot of what? Certainly not the live broadcast because the camera was never visible there. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is credited to "Andres Putting" by the uploader named "Anthony Jhons" and claimed as own work, but the Image has no metadata. It is very small; smaller than some Facebook images. It shows a scene from a television show from a very close-in perspective. It does not appear to be own work, possibly a screenshot from a Facebook page, promotional material, video about the broadcast - anything. But it doesn't have any of the indications and attributes of own work. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyright Violation, cover of a new book. Fano (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
![01:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/02/01#c-Fano-2022-02-01T01:58:00.000Z-File:"Maggie_und_die_Stadt_der_Diebe".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
![06:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/02/01#c-Gbawden-2022-02-14T06:27:00.000Z-File:"Maggie_und_die_Stadt_der_Diebe".jpg){kind=link}
Possible Copiright violation. Cover of new book. Fano (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
![01:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/02/01#c-Fano-2022-02-01T01:59:00.000Z-File:Cover_"Tara_und_Tahnee".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
![06:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/02/01#c-Gbawden-2022-02-14T06:28:00.000Z-File:Cover_"Tara_und_Tahnee".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Undescribed mediocre snapshot of unidentified location, uncategorized -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Logos / graphics claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work' and personal images. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 14 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 08:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 14 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 08:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
unused and unusable test file, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
No source info Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. No Creative Commons licence on the source page. Volodymyr D-k (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. Not used. Skazi 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This is not a textlogo. Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: The images doesn't belongs to the media (12TV). EFE Agency video. COM:LL. Image does appear in the youtube broadcast though it is not clear that the copyright of youtube would cover that derivative work, — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete another video from the same POV used by another media. It seems to be the same source (EFE Agency). MiguelAlanCS (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete +1 --Davidpar (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
A publicity photo, published before here, possible copyvio. C messier (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
orphan, low quality Gunnar Guðvarðarson (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - As far as I can tell, this is the best-quality photo of w:CGP Grey on Commons, so it has distinctive educational value and is thus within scope. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep; this is silly. The quality is fine -- it's not gonna pass a QI nomination but it's perfectly acceptable. Photos of people notable enough to have a Wikipedia article indisputably meet COM:EDUSE. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Subject has stated he does not want his face to be on Wikipedia (see en:Talk:CGP Grey/Archive 1#An image of his face, spoiler alert). For this reason it is not realistically useful on the site. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Still has plenty of educational uses as a photo of a notable person, even if those uses are not on Wikipedia. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The image serves an encyclopaedic purpose and is of acceptable quality (in fact, it is believed to be the best-quality photo we have of the subject, as of the day this comment was written). If personality rights really are an issue, the template {{Personality rights}} may be applied to this image. Nevertheless, personality rights are non-copyright restrictions and is not a basis to delete an image. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and ask the WMF if they want to allow any public figure that posed for a non-defamatory image, to ask that it later be removed. I am pretty sure they ruled on this before, but I cannot find the ruling. --RAN (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Removal requests are normally accepted if good reasons can be given. Dexxor (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that CGP Grey would necessarily want the photo deleted in this case. He talked in depth about posing for photos at Random Acts of Intelligence (the event where this photo was taken) and allowing them to be public in Hello Internet episode #25 (jump to timestamp 1:21:50). His position is basically that he's okay with the photos being out there in public, but he recommends that people not seek them out; he prefers not to know the faces of many podcasters he listens to, and he thinks most of his audience would be better off just thinking of him as a faceless voice. So even though he didn't want his photo displayed on his highly-trafficked Wikipedia page, I think he might be okay with them existing much less prominently on Commons (especially since they have been deliberately hidden under the category Photographs of CGP Grey, so that you know what you're about to see when you click on it). –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Removal requests are normally accepted if good reasons can be given. Dexxor (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We have an official guideline on Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and a checklist. Starting with the checklist, we have the following answers. 1. Yes, there is an identifiable living person. 2. No, we don't have consent. 3a. Yes, this image was supposedly taken at the Random Acts of Intelligence event, for which tickets were on sale to the public;[1] it was therefore taken in a public place. 3b. No, consent is not required as the image was taken at en:U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, USA. The image therefore achieves the basic requirements of retention, so we aren't required to remove it. However, we can consider application of discretion to remove it, if the community desires. As stated in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, "The subject, photographer, or uploader of an image may request that it be removed from Commons. The reasons for removal may include such things as "It causes embarrassment" or "It was published without my consent", etc. Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests if good reasons can be given. In any case you may address a removal request through the normal public review process of a deletion request. If discretion is required, a deletion request explaining this may also be sent privately through Commons:Contact us/Problems." From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Based on this information, I see no reason to delete the image. The uploader (User:IagoQnsi) has specifically stated that they would like to keep the image. If the subject or the photographer (presumably not the uploader) comes forward and requests a removal from the site (either through a DR or through Commons:Contact us/Problems), we can delete it as needed. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In my view there is no reason to delete it. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Newer duplicate of File:Flag of Norway.png. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Newer duplicate of File:Flag of Norway.png. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; you could have deleted yourself as F8. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Uploads of User Aimeroua
[edit]Already notified @Fitindia: of this, since he deleted one of the uploads of the user (User talk:Aimerou) and I thought he might have more insight, but he advised me to file a normal deletion request, which is here now.
Already deleted: File:Aimerou 3.jpg on 2021-11-28 ("personal photos ... out of scope")
I ask to delete all other uploads of this user as well. They are all either copyright violations or personal photos which are unused and out of scope. Two look like crops of Commons Files, which lack the proper information (like exif and author), so they are very well found on the internet too (and stem from there, not knowing that they were already here).
One file is problematic, since it is widely used. Unfortunately not only through Wikidata Infobox ... I deleted it there, since it's a blatant copyvio. But it is still used in a lot of Wikipedias.
They files and reasons are:
Personal Photos (unused and out of scope)
- File:Mouhamed And Me.jpg
- File:1 mouhamed.jpg
- File:Daouda and me 1.jpg
- File:Alioune.png
- File:Daouda 2.jpg
- File:Daouda 1.jpg
- File:Aimerou 2.jpg
- File:Aimerou 1.jpg
Copyviolations (no exif, titles sin different languages, published before with higher resolution ...)
- File:Elon et sa femme.jpg - published here[2] six years ago.
- File:Merkel and husband.jpg - published here[3] six years ago.
- File:Merkel et gates.jpg - source dpa[4] published seven years ago.
- File:Elon et gates.jpg published a few months before here[5]
Copyvio and problematic
- File:Sundar pichai.png - at least published on Facebook months ago[6] in higher resolution. Was uploaded before (and merged) by an globally locked Spam-account. Maybe this needs an extra deletion request?!
Only technical copyvio (can be healed and kept ... though they are not used and new uploads/crops may be better and easier to do)
- File:Angela merkel 2.jpg - from Flickr[7] under CC-BY 2.0. If kept, has to be attributed correctly and should be uploaded in full resolution. Right now it's just a snap from the internet.
- File:Angela merkel 1.jpg - can be sourced to Commonss file File:Tallinn_Digital_Summit._Welcome_dinner_hosted_by_HE_Donald_Tusk._Handshake_(36669383664).jpg but has to attributed and licensed correctly if kept.
- File:Bill gates.jpg - can be sourced to Commons file File:Bert Koenders - Bill Gates.jpg but has to be attributed and licensed properly if kept.
.jpg){kind=link}
I would delete the "technical copyvios" too, since they are no improvement to what we have and if anyone wants to crop or otherwise use them, he's free to do so in a proper manner. --Mirer (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; thank you for the reasoned explanation/investigation. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Undeleted File:Sundar pichai.png after UDR: The image was extracted from a freely licensed video. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring the picture. It was widely used before the deletion. But just for the record: It was sourced as "own file" (wrong license too ...) and no video was mentioned. The only source I could find, was the publication on Facebook. --Mirer (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work from somewhere, certainly not "own work". If the image was taken shortly before the subject's death, the photographer might well not have been dead for the minimum time for this to be in public domain. 217.239.4.223 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio from [here], no indication of CC licensing, no indication that uploader is identical with photographer. 217.239.4.223 13:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio from here, no indication of CC licensing or "own work". 217.239.4.223 13:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim55 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
small resolution, no EXIF – unlikely own work (many copyvios before) Polarlys (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- The image can also be found here. Not sure what kind of a license Soundcloud uses, but I'd be surprised if it's CC. --217.239.4.223 23:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
AI images from persons created by OrviIIe
[edit]
These images are created with AI, based on images on the web of these people, as the uploader states on nlwp. I don't know if we want to host these kinds of images on Commons, and use them in our articles/items/etc. The following question would be: what is the correct licensing status for these kinds of creations? --Ciell (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to say that I have no problem with them being removed, because as you pointed out, it may not be the best thing from an ethical point of view. OrviIIe (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35613562052).jpg
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35613564372).jpg
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35613566032).jpg
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35651301101).jpg
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35651302651).jpg
- File:Presentation of Fishing Boats for Loubiere Fishermen (35651304221).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from background. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Most deleted by Ellin Beltz. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by YannBernat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
derivative work of multiple CD and book covers, unlikely that these are all available with free licenses Verbcatcher (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
2004.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2004.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no needed, replaced by small size Areshka (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
2004.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
2004.jpg){kind=link}
2003.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2003.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no needed, replaced by small size Areshka (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
2003.jpg){kind=link}
2003.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
no needed, replaced by small size Areshka (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation, includes a watermark for https://www.djanesimone.de/ where there appears to be no free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Avneesh JDP (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons isn't a photo album and these do not look like selfies. So if this person is notable, good licenses please, if not notable - please remove for scope.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Work by living artist (Patrice Jeener), missing permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: low-res/web-size image with transmission code in EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res stand-alone legend without context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aion hyman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused promotional images of non-notable performer, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagrams without context, little educational value, out of scope. One is used on sandbox page of user without meaningful edits.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot, missing source and permission, copyvio and out of scope. Only used on userpage of user without meaningful edits. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional photo of non-notable band (?), no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:DW per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Cory W. Watts
- File:F9 @ DEN (10912580526).jpg
- File:FRONTIER A319 (N938FR) (7204533536).jpg
- File:FRONTIER A320 (N203FR) (14279163771).jpg
- File:FRONTIER A320 (N216FR) (14168977558).jpg
- File:FRONTIER A320 (N218FR) (14231429844).jpg
- File:FRONTIER Airbus 319 (N910FR) (11965664603).jpg
- File:FRONTIER Airbus 319 (N948FR) (11965420065).jpg
- File:FRONTIER Airbus 319 (N949FR) (6432744393).jpg
- File:FRONTIER Airbus 320 (N201FR) (14294738561).jpg
- File:FRONTIER E-190 (N164HQ) (6916946899).jpg
- File:FRONTIER E-190 (N172HQ) (6937090263).jpg
- File:FRONTIER EMB-190 (N161HL) (7189787465).jpg
- File:FRONTIER EMB-190 (N163HQ) (7783833680).jpg
- File:FRONTIER EMB-190 (N175HQ) (6843784306).jpg
- File:Hawaiian 717... beautiful (8165760637).jpg
- File:Hawaiian Airlines Boeing 767-300ER (N590HA) (6131805460).jpg
- File:N271SK, ERJ 145, @ KMSN, January 2011 (6149188338).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(7204533536).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14279163771).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14168977558).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14231429844).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(11965664603).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(11965420065).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6432744393).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14294738561).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6916946899).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6937090263).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(7189787465).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(7783833680).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6843784306).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6131805460).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
blason dont le televerseur n'est pas l'auteur. image pris sur le site de la mairie. https://www.dachstein.fr/charte/dachstein-logo.svg --Chatsam (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and this edit. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
out of Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden at 06:18, 14 February 2022 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prodbyam2018.png --Krdbot 14:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
not public domain Basgar Peverel (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
copyright owner will upload with permissions Basgar Peverel (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
copyright owner will upload with permissions Basgar Peverel (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
je vais réuploader une autre version merci Hoos32 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Bonjour, étant propriétére de cette image merci de la supprimer SVP Hoos32 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
please delete this picture i have uploaded another version best more than this version. thank you Hoos32 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; uploader request. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Laut Pressestelle des HWWA Frau Hagemann keine Freigabe erteilt Bahnmoeller (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
No permission by Anna Mutter --Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Archivo personal y no es trabajo propio tampoco. 191.125.166.29 00:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:29, 23 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 08:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of ownership or permission to release under a free license. Photo was taken, and the copyright is likely held, by Mihail Amoli. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There are reasonable doubts that these files belong to the uploader. EXIF data is missing. The photos were taken earlier than the date indicated in the description: for example, the athlete finished his career in 2019 and the photo with the cup was taken no later than 2019. All photos that the participant uploaded earlier have been deleted as infringing copyrights. GAndy (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's time to impose a ban on the participant for systematic copyright infringement. GAndy (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope:Alternate history map Enyavar (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope:Alternate history map Enyavar (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This poster of a museum is under copyright Culex (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cette photo vient illustrer ce texte : Puissants, agressifs et engagés, ses tags, throw-ups, et graffs réalisés dans les artères souterraines du métro, les murs des terrains vagues de la capitale et à l'étranger, font de lui une figure de référence du graffiti international avec le Graffiti International 1981-1991 au Musée National des Monuments Français. Virginie RCH (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This work by artist Shuck One is still under copyright (born in 1970) Culex (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oui c'est une oeuvre de l'Artiste qui argumente le texte suivant : On lui doit ainsi l'invention du Graffic Artism, un travail sur toile qui conserverait l’énergie de la rue (ex : Élévation, 2012 Acrylique, peinture aérosol et marqueur sur toile), Virginie RCH (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merci de m'expliquer pourquoi la photo est retiré. Virginie RCH (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is under copyright Culex (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely the image is free; clearly a crop from a copyrighted image from Super Bowl XVII. See https://static.clubs.nfl.com/image/private/t_editorial_landscape_mobile/f_auto/redskins/zgx1c80wklycbmlr8bkn.jpg which is a black and white version of the exact same image. It seems obvious that this is a crop from the color version of this image. Jayron32 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This file is no longer used online by the organization or anyone else. Problemsmith (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo without evidence of permission. --✗plicit 12:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work of the uploader, building drawings. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. We assume that the copyright of a letter belongs to its writer, no evidence of permission. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
meant for abuse. was used in wikidata vandalism. likely license info is wrong. BrokenSegue 01:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible G4 per previous [8]. Naufal Praw (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=File:OY-KAA_before_delivery_to_MAS.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment This could be the owner uploading their own file such as this one:[9](where Kplastique is the owner of the picture as I communicated with him and uploaded the file) but I'm not sure why their name is Pete Trancred and not Peter Tancred so that is suspicious. Otherwise, everything is okay, but not sure whether to delete or keep. The previous one was an obvious delete but not sure on this one. Username006 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_DC-10_Sioux_City_Crash_N1819U.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious photoshopped, rip-off content of [10] and per rationale [11] Naufal Praw (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; clear copyvio of https://www.airliners.net/photo/Garuda-Indonesia/Boeing-777-3U3-ER/2296601/L -M.nelson (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of an image previously published at https://nitter.domain.glass/SolomonMKassa/status/1477312983667818498. No evidence that the original photograph is freely licensed and/or allows modifications. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Solomon203 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
old photo V.thiery (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
old photo V.thiery (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: firstly per COM:INUSE, it's still in use in fr:Liste des maires de Saint-Raphaël (Var), and we also keep older photos of people. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal text image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm kool with deletion if someone has a problem with this entry. Ahkamon (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Images from https://hauteliving.com/ seem to be copyrighted according to the copyright information on the site John B123 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The photo appears to be copyrighted. Mhawk10 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Apparently a fantasy map / hoax? Neither "Fagania" nor "Cistrina" show up in Internet Searches, not to speak of Wikipedia articles.
The Italian municipality of Fagagna looks different, too. Enyavar (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; apparently a personal fantasy map, unused, outside COM:SCOPE (if it were depicting a known fictional country from some artistic work, it could be in scope). --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
license us bevore 1927, hard to believe if it not shows a time traveler LutzBruno (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It doesn’t claim anywhere to be from before 1927. This is in the public domain as a work of the US federal government. Dominic (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- but then it should be changed?! regards LutzBruno (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- As it has now been pointed out that you made this nomination in error, please withdraw the request. You are instead just suggesting to change a license from one correct public domain template to a more specific one. Anyone may edit the page. Dominic (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- but then it should be changed?! regards LutzBruno (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; PD-US. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that this is licensed CC-BY-SA. However, I don't know whether it might meet the COM:Threshold of originality and so pass as PD ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. It’s below the threshold of originality in the United States. Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 00:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as below ToO. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep — simple text and shapes, is certainly below the threshold of originality. Way more complex logos were denied copyright status. From the file history, it looks like originally was uploaded as CC-BY-SA, which is patently wrong indeed. But the license was fixed since. -- Wesha (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This logo cannot be copyrighted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Professional media portrait, unlikely to be the uploader's own work. -M.nelson (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
An infrigmant of Copyright. Whilst I personaly belive that the album art for Yeezus is in the public domain, English WIkipedia uses a low resolution version in fair use, this should stay consistant. The Radioactive Box (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would think it was ineligible for copyright, it could be trademarked, but that would have to be determined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. --RAN (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: The cover itself is probably PD, but that specific photograph was not the uploader's own work. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
OOS edit of File:Xxxtentacion mugshot.jpg —oscitare (he/him, il/lui; talk) 10:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. In addition, blog logos generally have notability problem. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
advertising in ruwiki, no educational use Drakosh (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, the one has a black border that looks like it was cropped from a screenshot or something. No meaningful exif
Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: FB code in EXIF data. And non-notable group, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gadariya History1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on the graphic elements of these two images.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JoanneforArizona2016 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:JSLC Wikipedia link image 20160320 jslc.jpg
- File:Oval Main Page Website TT Pinned Hair 20150913.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res hand-drawn diagram, COM:WEBHOST, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, little educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram with little context, mostly illegible, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- As with most of such actions, do as you wish. I would tell you that the PID controls depicted are quite standard and used in the industry. The image shows all of the relevant settings involved with PID control, including the process value (PV), output (OP), things like clamps, whether it is reverse acting, and whether it is part of a cascaded loop. That loop control is from actual service of a public facility in California (it has multiple hearth furnaces). I am not in Calif anymore, and left that plant in 2012. I can provide you the plant manager's contact info as needed. The image would be useful for any discussion of PID control. Billymac00 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
File:Pie Chart of Operating System over the course of a week as submitted by highschool students for their IT assignment in HTML coding.png
[edit]
Unused low-res diagram without context, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context or purpose, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, no educational value, out of scope. And screengrab from unknown source, missing essential info. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable team, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. And likely not own work: low-res/web-size images with FB code in EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
low quality, out of scope, etc AlanyaSeeburg (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ricardo L1ma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images all smaller than facebook, no apparent own work.
- File:Topo Serra Negra.jpg
- File:Bruno Sartori.jpg
- File:Lima, Ricardo Junio Feitosa.png
- File:Pierre Teodósio.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Uncategorized, very grainy and possibly not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a professional/promotional photo, unlikely to be the uploader's own work. If the uploader has permission, they should provide it to COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope, certainly not own work Polarlys (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martinasuperti (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
- File:Jason Ballard with Secretary of the Air Force.jpg
- File:Jason Ballard working with business clients.jpg
- File:Jason Ballard with Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer.jpg
- File:Jason Ballard Official U.S. Air Force Military Photo.jpg
Timtrent (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Can't trust three of them, the last one (portrait) is 95% likely government work but the subject is not ntoable and we don't need excess military photos without much new educational data here - 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) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
These pictures are of the uploader.
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright).
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:Jason Ballard Official Civilian Photo.jpg
- File:Jason Ballard Official Military Photo.jpg
- File:Jason Ballard serving in the Middle East.jpg
Timtrent (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Author requested deletion due to containing real name in history; image is not really informative for relevant articles; if desired image may be re-uploaded without attribution to username/real name ParallaxTZ (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Olá, João! Você está bem? Peço perdão por publicar a imagem sem autorização. Entendo que isso não é uma coisa legal de se fazer, mas, peço desculpas mais uma vez. Quero desejar pra você, que este ano seja de muita paz e saúde para todos!
- Um super abraço, e saúde sempre!! :) Kaíky Almeida (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probable copyright violation, appears to be a photograph of a record cover or a poster, no indication that the Flickr user has any connection to the band. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
small resolution, missing EXIF, certainly not own work, some images can be found on army websites (https://pejabatpublik.com/2021/12/04/kolonel-inf-rudy-saladin-terbaik-1997-dan-kini-danrem-warastratama/, https://tniad.mil.id/profil/pejabat/)
- File:Mohammad Imam Gogor Agnie Aditya.jpg
- File:Dwi Sasongko.jpg
- File:Achiruddin.png
- File:Rudy Saladin.jpg
- File:Ade Ary Syam Indradi.jpg
- File:Sony Sanjaya.jpg
- File:Erwin Kurniawan.jpg
- File:Jeremias Rontini.jpg
- File:Budhi Herdi Susianto.jpg
- File:Hengki Haryadi.jpg
- File:Suntara Wisnu Budi Hidayanta.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
User logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
U1. Участник запросил удаление в его личном пространстве. Author request Damirror (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Túrelio. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded a better and newer version of this picture. Calinic Petcu (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The new image is not in the category. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded a better and newer version of this picture. Calinic Petcu (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is no alternate version in the category. --RAN (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
No parece trabajo propio. 191.125.166.29 00:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, transmission code in EXIF data. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 深圳會展中心 SZCEC Convention & Exhibition Center July 2019 SSG cosplay 12.jpg
[edit]
The better version: File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 深圳會展中心 SZCEC Convention & Exhibition Center July 2019 SSG cosplay 11.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to delete this image due to editing error Syzyszune (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- What is the editing error, does it need to be renamed? --RAN (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
not my art Mhatopzz (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Kareem4kareem (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gracethomas1842 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very small files, look like screenshots. no exif, unlikely to be own work
Gbawden (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(2001).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(2001).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(2001).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(2001).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(2002).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(2002).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(2002).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(2002).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1993).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1993).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1993).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1993).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1987).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1987).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1987).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1987).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1978).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1978).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1978).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1978).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1957).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1957).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1957).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1957).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1962).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1962).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1962).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1962).jpg){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1960).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pedro_C%C3%A1mara_(1960).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Porqué no se subió con la licencia correspondiente Antonio Suesta (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1960).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
_Pedro_Cámara_(1960).jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, superseded, other version available Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete makes sense to me ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ (inuktitut) (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, superseded, other version available Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Threshold of originality in Australia is too low. If the Aboriginal Flag has been copyrighted until recently, then this logo with more intricate design (ball graphic, and subtle background on the blue and green square) surely would be non-free also. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Lp186 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Any rationale?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hariboneagle927: Because of keeping the file, if you delete the file, there is a risk that other wiki languages will not exist, you know? Lp186 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- If a certain language version of Wikipedia allows for locally hosted content under fair use, upload it ther instead with the appropriate fair use claim. (e.g. Copyrighted logo uploaded on the English Wikipedia itself rather than in Commons). Commons is not a place to host copyrighted content.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Strong Sorry @Hariboneagle927: , this is the official logo, no need for this official English Wikipedia logo. Lp186 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Lp186: It being an official logo is irrelevant. You clearly don't understand the concept of fair use. Logo is copyrighted which can't be hosted in Wikicommons.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- If a certain language version of Wikipedia allows for locally hosted content under fair use, upload it ther instead with the appropriate fair use claim. (e.g. Copyrighted logo uploaded on the English Wikipedia itself rather than in Commons). Commons is not a place to host copyrighted content.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hariboneagle927: Because of keeping the file, if you delete the file, there is a risk that other wiki languages will not exist, you know? Lp186 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Any rationale?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. -Herr chagall (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- COM:NOTAVOTE applies. File is most likely copyrighted in Australia (and possibly New Zealand as well). Commons needed to to be free to use in both the United States and the source country.14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination ("keep" votes are not based on any policy). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, other version available File:1.19.2 Belarus (Road sign).svg Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, other version available File:RU road sign 1.21.svg Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, superseded, other version available File:RU road sign 1.12.2.svg Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
The uploader has a history of deleted images, the lastest due to copyvio. There is reason to suspect this image to be taken by a professional photographer for the ice hockey club Kalmar HC and thus assume that this image is not free. This image was uploaded the same day as another image which was deemed a copyvio. Tooga~commonswiki (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, FB code in EXIF data. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from background. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, and non-notable event, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from background. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, and non-notable event, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from background. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, and non-notable event, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Picture is of 1935; no photographer, no source given Goesseln (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
this map has no referances. also there is a signature on the map Zemxer (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Signature is same as uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Original source and author on English Wikipedia was "Source = Private collection" & "Author= unknown, both persons in this image are deceased". So, not enwp user's own work. Might be PD due to unregistered/old, but I haven't had time to look at that, so tagging for discussion to be held instead. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Williamsville Wellness and User:Johncab593 are unlikely the same person. VRT permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This file is no longer used online by the organization, it could not be replaced with the updated version File:Globcal_Logo_2021.png due to technical problems with the replace wizard. Problemsmith (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free album covers, one of which is in the fair-use Wikipedia file w:en:File:12x5(Rolling Stones Album) coverart.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
_coverart.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused user-made logo, out of COM:SCOPE. -M.nelson (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Too small to be usable, out of scope. And likely DW, missing original author, source, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Not because of the image size - it's small, though not extremely so, would still be large enough for a thumbnail image; still, the other reasons for deletion apply. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
If it is from 1965 then 70 year rules don't apply. GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
its old logo 184.82.29.101 03:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, bogus deletion nomination. 182.1.116.185 05:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Purports to be own work, but it doesn't appear the uploader is Gantz. See w:User talk:Historical User#Copyright ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - below ToO. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Signatures are PD in both the US and Israel per Commons page on Israeli ToO. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. --James F. (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
out of Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I think. Google translates the description as "Professor Dr. Suchachwee Suwansawat has returned to work on the construction of Thailand's first subway tunnel". That looks to me like this image might be actually in scope. It would need appropriate categories. Leaving for the next admin to decide. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Agreed with Gestumblindi; edited the page with the translated caption and added cats. --James F. (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CCPSupporter (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Potential advertisement. Notability of the website "Qiuwen" is questionable. No search result on Google [12]. See also Wikidata deletion request.
SCP-2000 11:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Qiuwen baike is a Wikipedia mirror site runned by Wikipedians of Mainland China User Group, there's no notability problem. Everyone in zhwiki knows they are working on it, don't pretend you are not. CCPSupporter (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikimedians of Mainland China is a non-recognized group. Only small group of people (i.e. experienced zhwiki users) know cannot verify notability. SCP-2000 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- So how many people do you think would verify?
- But after all, is Notability really a reason for deletion on Commons, if so what about these dick pics, should anyone ask for a deletion? CCPSupporter (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely, as that is what project scope means. Stang★ 17:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- First, there should be a large of people knowing while there are evidences can prove this. Of course, if there are other reasonable evidence and arguments can verify notability, files can also be treat as in project scope. Second, Notability is a reason for deletion [13]. Normally it is used in deletion request that related to website, company etc. SCP-2000 07:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought you would mention some already exist rules in this wiki, but you gave a link of search results of many people mentioned this word. How could it be necessary only bacause a lot of people used this reason?
- However, I think this deletion request is not neotral at all, caused the one proposed it was mentally against the website or project (Qiuwen). CCPSupporter (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wikimedians of Mainland China is a non-recognized group. Only small group of people (i.e. experienced zhwiki users) know cannot verify notability. SCP-2000 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: The wikidata item was deleted as lack of notability.--SCP-2000 04:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Beyonds TOO China, and per m:WMFBAN. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- None of the image links to WMC websites. CCPSupporter (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- comment on File:Qiuwen baike screenshot.png: The uploader seemed to take a screenshot of a website under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. However, there's no attribution - the uploader said it is the own work but didn't mention the creator of the website. The name or the link of the creator of the website should be provided at once, otherwise it has violated the CC BY-SA license and should be
Speedy delete. --128.6.37.20 02:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC) - Keep (vote about Qiuwen logo.jpg) Not out of scope, since it is the logo of an encyclopedia, like many logos of other similar entities. The disputes that we had with their founders are irrelevant. Also, the image is currently in use. MarioGom (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then TOO? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hard to tell. Some calligraphy works are copyrighted (see COM:TOO China), but I'm not sure this simple character would be covered. MarioGom (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then TOO? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: These files are currently in use. SCP-2000 03:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn, files are in use. --Rosenzweig τ 20:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CCPSupporter (talk · contribs)
[edit]License laundering. These files had been uploaded to Commons in 22 January 2022. However, the source of files were uploaded in January 24, 2022 [14]. COM:VRT permission is necessary.
- File:What if Steam is blocked all.png
- File:What if Steam is blocked 3.png
- File:What if Steam is blocked 2.png
- File:What if Steam is blocked 1.png
SCP-2000 04:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SCP-2000: The work is created at early 2021, please read to the end. However unpublished until I uploaded it on Commons, and got a CV then I contacted the author to remind him to uploaded to a public website like pixiv.net.CCPSupporter (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CCPSupporter: This is my wrong. Sorry about this. However even these files have not copyright problem. these files are out of scope as they are artwork without educational use and created by not notable author. These work just express author point of view of en:Great Firewall. SCP-2000 04:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the work is "no educational use", and would remind you that's not all of "author's point of view".
- For the topic Steam blockage. In China (PRC), whether a website is blocked or not or will be blocked or not is always uncertain. People all have their own explainaion and experience about online censorship. The comic presented how the public opinion is affected by GFW's action, and that's very useful, in evaluating what it means when it comes to the GFW. CCPSupporter (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CCPSupporter: This is my wrong. Sorry about this. However even these files have not copyright problem. these files are out of scope as they are artwork without educational use and created by not notable author. These work just express author point of view of en:Great Firewall. SCP-2000 04:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused low quality logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. As the designer of this statue, Eduardo Castrillo, died in 2016, therefore it’s still under copyright, which also applies to this photo as a derivative work. Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, as I see more serious problem than violation of the sculptor's copyright. The file contains FBMD transmission code in its metadata. Therefore, proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the actual 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 this image 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. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Government House of Azerbaijan
[edit]There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. The building was designed by architects w:Lev Rudnev (d. 1956) and V.O. Munts (date of death unknown). Permission from their heirs is required, via COM:OTRS. Noncommercial FOP of Azerbaijan is not OK per Commons:Licensing.
- File:Baku 7.JPG
- File:Baku banner Government House.jpg
- File:Baku centro - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dom Covet - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dom Sovet- Azerbaijan.jpg
- File:Gobierno de Azerbaiyán, Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 27.jpg
- File:Government House in Baku.jpg
- File:Governmental House of Baku.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- The posthumous copyright term for Azerbaijan is 70 years p.m.a.. So using Rudnev's death year, 1956+70+1 (to complete the calendar)= January 1, 2027. Unfortunately, there's no inmediate information on when Munts died or if he is still alive today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Munts died on 14th january 1974 --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Iifar: So these may be considered to restore in 2045? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, looks very much like that. --Ivar (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Iifar: So these may be considered to restore in 2045? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Government House of Azerbaijan
[edit]There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. The building was designed by architects Lev Rudnev (d. 1956) and V.O. Munts (d. 1974). Noncommercial FOP of Azerbaijan is not OK per Commons:Licensing.
- File:2013 Military parade in Baku 04.jpg
- File:Government House of Azerbaijan in 2020.jpg
- File:Sabayil, Baku, Azerbaijan - panoramio (113).jpg
- File:Sabayil, Baku, Azerbaijan - panoramio (114).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022020610004271 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 09:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Source states it's art belonging to https://www.lilliamnieves.net/profile/ .. however, this artist is not dead The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
A larger version of this photo has been previously published at www.cityrealty.com.au (direct img link) with a non-free license. Without additional evidence that this image is freely licensed, as a work previously published elsewhere with a non-free license, we need permission via COM:VRT. —RP88 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- This was a mistake, I'll remove it. Don't worry alright. - reuploader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke848 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
And also probably:
- File:The Switch Student Tower - Adelaide.jpg
- File:269 North Terrace Student Tower.jpg
- File:Sofitel Hotel Adelaide.jpg
- File:Frome Central Tower One Adelaide.png
- File:Telstra house.png
- File:Kodo Apartments Adelaide.png
- File:77 Grenfell Street.png
- File:Vue king william.png
-- FugerCh100 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- These are images I've taken. Continue to reporting them without evidence and I'll get my lawyer. Luke848 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- None of these images have EVER been published on www.cityrealty.com.au, therefore this reporting spree by FugerCh100 is misleading and will be removed. You are targeting me due to a previous lisencing mistake I made. These are free to use lisence images I've taken on the Streets of Adelaide. Luke848 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- You may find the addition of these to this deletion discussion frivolous, but please don't make legal threats on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- ALright, I won't. But I'm sure you understand my frustration. Luke848 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @FugerCh100: It's not clear to me why you've added these additional photos to this deletion discussion. They don't match the described rationale for File:Frome central tower one.png at all. Can you explain why you think they should be deleted? —RP88 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to make it clear that I made a mistake when i uploaded File:Frome central tower one.png. I am new to the forum and did not understand what I was doing. It was an accident that i idenfitifed that copyright image as my own, I sincerly apologise. I now know how to use the liscensing system, and File:Frome central tower.png is No longer in use on any wikipedia page therefore not violating the Terms and Conditions of Wikipedia. You may delete it as you please. I've instead uploaded an old photo of my copyright own of that same tower and I'm using that instead. Those other images that have misleadingly been added by @FugerCh100 are My COPYRIGHT own and I kindly ask you release them so I may use them on a Wikipedia page I'm updating. Luke848 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and speedily delete File:Frome central tower one.png as "uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content" (see COM:CSD#G7 for policy details). With regards to the other files added to this DR, I'm inclined to believe Luke848 that they are his own works and absent evidence that they've been previously published with a non-free license I think we can Keep them. —RP88 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers @RP88, Thankyou for your assistance! Luke848 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and speedily delete File:Frome central tower one.png as "uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content" (see COM:CSD#G7 for policy details). With regards to the other files added to this DR, I'm inclined to believe Luke848 that they are his own works and absent evidence that they've been previously published with a non-free license I think we can
- I'd like to make it clear that I made a mistake when i uploaded File:Frome central tower one.png. I am new to the forum and did not understand what I was doing. It was an accident that i idenfitifed that copyright image as my own, I sincerly apologise. I now know how to use the liscensing system, and File:Frome central tower.png is No longer in use on any wikipedia page therefore not violating the Terms and Conditions of Wikipedia. You may delete it as you please. I've instead uploaded an old photo of my copyright own of that same tower and I'm using that instead. Those other images that have misleadingly been added by @FugerCh100 are My COPYRIGHT own and I kindly ask you release them so I may use them on a Wikipedia page I'm updating. Luke848 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Most kept by RP88. --Gbawden (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Orville
[edit]1
[edit]- File:Park Savelkoul protest baby.jpg (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Park Savelkoul protest baby.jpg)
- File:Park Savelkoul protest kinderen.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV deuropening.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV les.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV notities.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV dansen.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV keuken.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV vijver.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV trap.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV grasveld.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV muziek.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV muurtje.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV groepsfoto.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV vlag.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV oprijlaan.jpg
- File:Park Savelkoul VAVV wandeling.jpg
- File:Kasteel Savelkoul VAVV postbedeling.jpg
All are dated on 1 January 1900, but they're clearly taken decennia later, so how could they be published before Januari 1, 1927? All have an 'Unknown author' and yet they're supposed to be in the public domain, all have a MyHeritage watermark. Many of this user's uploads have problems, see Special:ListFiles/OrviIIe&ilshowall=1, see also Special:DeletedContributions/OrviIIe. Wutsje 04:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
2
[edit]
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Clearly a screenshot and a derivative. Wutsje 04:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Most likely from a 2014 TV performance, compare [15]. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
3
[edit]- File:Schade (11), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (12), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (10), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Slachtoffers (5), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (9), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (8), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (7), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (6), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Slachtoffers (4), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (5), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (4), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Slachtoffers (3), Mortsel 5 april 1943.png
- File:Schade (3), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Lijken, Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Schade (1), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Slachtoffers (2), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Luchtbeeld, Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Slachtoffers (1), Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Lijkkisten, Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
- File:Hulpverleners met lijk, Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Mortsel_5_april_1943.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Source is supposed to be the website 5april1943, but there's no indication of a free license there; again made by an 'Unknown author'; again supposedly to be PD, in the US because published before January 1, 1927 - but the bombardment pictured happened on April 5, 1943. Wutsje 04:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for the WWII images. WWII images became PD after the 1996 URAA cutoff for the USA to recognize them. They are PD in Germany but the US doesn't recognize that, and they become PD 95 years after being made public, so 1943+95. It is a loophole of US copyright law. However! The WMF has ruled to keep URAA loophole images. See: wikimedia:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge --RAN (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "WWII images became PD after the 1996 URAA cutoff for the USA to recognize them." Material whose copyright was seized or administered through vesting orders by the Office of Alien Property and "in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof" was not subject to renewal under the URAA. 17 U.S.C. § 104A(a)(2). Is that what you are referring to (Template:PD-US-alien property)? I don't see why this would apply to these files. — Pajz (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete based on the information currently available. The only thing we seem to know about the pictures is that they were taken in Belgium, so it seems like a good starting point to assume that Belgium is the country of origin. Because Belgium has apparently recognised protection of photographic works since the enaction of the 1886 Copyright Act (A Strowel and N Ide, "Belgium" in Y Gendreau, A Nordemann, and R Oesch (eds), Copyright and Photographs: An International Survey (Kluwer 1999) 79), with case law "putting the threshold of protection quite low, so that most photographs are protected" (id., at 83), I suppose there is a good chance that the images would initially have enjoyed protection under Belgian law. Even if protection had lapsed at some point, Belgium transposed art 10(2) of the Term Directive effective August 1, 1994 (MM Walter, "Term Directive", in MM Walter and S von Lewinski (eds), European Copyright Law: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2010) 670; J Corbet, "La nouvelle loi belge sur le droit d'auteur" (1995) 164 RIDA 50, para 105), and with that, protected afresh subject matter protected somewhere else in the EU (id., para 105) for 70 years (id., para 24). If the works were in fact anonymous (the file descriptions say "unknown author"), those 70 years would have to be calculated from the moment the works were lawfully made available to the public (Code de droit économique, art XI.166(3)) as opposed to the year of death of the author. But we really don't know if they are anonymous. The fact that an uploader has found them somewhere on the internet without attribution (the source is given here as www.5april1943.be) doesn't make them anonymous works. And even if they were anonymous works, we don't know when they were made available to the public for the first time. That may have happened in 1943 or much later. — Pajz (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Pajz. The aerial bombing image (File:Luchtbeeld, Mortsel 5 april 1943.jpg) looked like it could be of US (or UK) origin and therefore in the public domain for one reason or another, but we'd need more specific information to determine that. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probable copyright violation, photograph of an LP cover published in the USSR in the 1960s. COM:Russia does not appear to give a rationale for this to be public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation. Google translation of the description is "The album cover of the Gramodeska 2008 composition competition - drawn and compiled by Marta Zechová". no evidence of permission from Marta Zechová, whose name does not match the uploader's username. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also delete File:Lpvb1.jpg, from the same uploader for the same reasons. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Name in Metadata is "Author Marcello Chiappini Copyright holder Marcello Chiappini" uploader is "Baxialby." Other image in gallery seems to be by uploader, this one does not appear to be by uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as a copyvio, found on other websites prior to its upload here, same with File:Rosetti Yard.jpg by the same uploader, also deleted as a copyvio because I found it on other websites prior to its upload here. --Rosenzweig τ 11:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No sign of this YouTube performance being CC 0. Ainali (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
You are not right. This file is published by a spanish guy that cede the audio to youtube and all the CC. Wikijahnn (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Youtube video has the standard Youtube licence, no evidence that this performance is CC 0 as claimed. --Rosenzweig τ 11:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jmcgnh as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have no objection to changing the license to PD-textlogo - I just use 'no permission' to start the process when I see bogus 'own work' uploads. Jmcgnh (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, though some information about the background (like the year they started using this) would be nice. --Rosenzweig τ 11:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No definite proof that the sound recording is in the public domain. Neither this nor that says a collection or piece is in the public domain. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I couldn't find any PD dedication either, and accd. to {{PD-US-record}} this 1955 recording is probably still protected until the end of 2065. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
useless and misleading, because this recording is wrong in terms of its Intonation (linguistics) -- it shall not be pronounced as a question Mateus2019 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. You're right, this is pronounced like a question. I considered keeping it as an example of an intonation question in German, but accd. to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Tino_no this was not recorded by a native speaker of German, so it's probably not the best example. --Rosenzweig τ 10:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of a record cover that is unlikely to be available with a free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not a picture of a single cover but two covers: the angle makes the artwork hard to discern, but that's exactly the reason why a de minimis exception would apply. In line with this comment, the picture is used on multiple projects in ways where the actual artwork is not material, e.g. Dutch Wiktionary uses it to illustrate the meaning of the Dutch equivalent of record sleeve. --MarcoSwart (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MarcoSwart: Commons:De minimis says: As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:
- the file is in use to illustrate X
- The file is used to illustrate the English Wikipedia article about the band: w:en:Uncle Bonsai
- the file is categorised in relation to X
- X is referenced in the filename
- The name of the band is included in the filename
- X is referenced in the description
- The names of the albums and of the band are referenced in the description
- X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
- If the album cover artwork was blocked out then the file would be useless.
- This file meets all but one of these tests, so it is very unlikely that de minimis applies. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- We need to be precise in the meaning of X: it refers to the work on which the copyright might be infringed (not: the artist, the band or the record company that may possess this right). In this case that would be the artwork on the two (rather different) covers, so in all probability we have to deal with X1 and X2. But the same reasoning applies to both:
- the file is not in use to illustrate either work of art, in fact, the artwork itself is not even mentioned in the article in English Wikipedia
- the file is not categorized in relation to the artwork
- the artwork is not referenced in the filename
- the artwork is not referenced in the description
- in all use cases except English Wikipedia removing the artwork (let's say: blur it, or replace it with PD imagery) would not make any difference; in all use cases the angle of the photograph and the disorderly combining of two different covers are a clear indication that the artwork itself is not a crucial part of this picture.
- There is no way in which this photograph could substantially change anything in the possibilities of the copyright holders to exploit the artwork. For this reason, de minimis is applicable. --MarcoSwart (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The wording in the COM:DM guidelines is 'referenced', not 'named'. 'Uncle Bonsai' in the file name and description are clear references to the non-free content. Both albums are named in the description. Your point about 'the possibilities of the copyright holders to exploit the artwork' appears to relate non-free content on Wikipedia (see w:en:WP:NFCC), and is not mentioned in COM:DM United States. (Uncle Bonsai is an American band so we should assume that the US rules apply.) Verbcatcher (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, the description added by the uploader includes "This is a photograph I took of my two Uncle Bonsai albums", indicating that these albums are the subject of the photograph, and are not incidental to it. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The difference between our views doesn't concern the wording of COM:DM or the rules we need to apply. Indeed, references are made to the names of the band and the albums, but neither of these names are by themselves copyrighted works contained in the file. Only the artwork of the two covers can be considered "copyrighted works contained in the file". My point is and was that de minimis does apply to this use. MarcoSwart (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- We need to be precise in the meaning of X: it refers to the work on which the copyright might be infringed (not: the artist, the band or the record company that may possess this right). In this case that would be the artwork on the two (rather different) covers, so in all probability we have to deal with X1 and X2. But the same reasoning applies to both:
- @MarcoSwart: Commons:De minimis says: As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:
- Delete per nomination. The unwritten de minimis defense is not available in this case. The cover image is visible in full as the central element (one of the two central elements) of this photograph. Whether "this photograph could substantially change anything in the possibilities of the copyright holders to exploit the artwork" (User:MarcoSwart) is not the proper test, as is particularly evident in the case law of the Ninth Circuit, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. See Bell v. Wilmott Storage Servs., LLC, 12 F.4th 1065, 1078–79 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that "[o]ur long line of precedent and that of the majority of our sister circuits supports the application of the de minimis principle in copyright only to questions of substantial similarity (and potentially fair use), i.e., whether there was de minimis copying of the protected work so as to be non-recognizable as a copy. Wholesale copying or reproduction of another's protected work, like the Indianapolis photo, by definition cannot be de minimis copying."; underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Pajz. --Rosenzweig τ 10:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since): which is exactly as the uploader left it. This image appears to be a Matthew Brady image (see the famous carpet and the baseboard) but I can't find it in the catalog of his works. It dates to 1875 but it is certainly not own work nor by the uploader. Requesting help from the uploader and the community to source and license correctly with interest in keeping the image, but I do not have enough information here to "just fix it." Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Unfortunately, nobody came forward with any helpful information. Looking at the few photos I found on the web, this photo does seem to show Arboleda, and since he died in 1883, the photo was taken no later than that and is therefore old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 10:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This should be {{PD-textlogo}} even by Taiwanese standards. The lettering is not calligraphy, but what looks like some computer font. --Rosenzweig τ 11:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, this isn't an improvement over the PNG version (especially not when used in articles) since the text isn't rendered correctly (possibly due to lack of font support). Jc86035 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see any glaring or obvious problems, plus it's in use now. Even if there were problems, those could be eliminated in future versions. --Rosenzweig τ 12:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
File does not meet Commons:EDUSE for these reasons: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." and "Advertising or self-promotion." See nomination for more details.
Supporting details for this deletion:
- "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills"
The file does not display the object in natural color, but has been colorized in a purple hue, apparently for artistic effect. It is quite distracting and makes the file unuseful for a discussion of the coin illustrated.
- "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality."
An image of the same coin without the false coloring already exists at File:5 Paise coin, India, 1965.jpg. By comparison, this image is clearly of the same type coin with the same design, but quality of the image in this file is degraded by the false color.
- "Advertising or self-promotion."
The user's name appears in the image, below and in between the two sides of the coin in gold-colored text: "Argha Mallick Photography". This is clearly advertising or self-promotion. It appears that Commons:NOTHOST may also apply.
PoundTales (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: not actual coins, but some kind of purple plastic replicas (at least that's how it looks like) + large photographer logo. The purpose of the files seems to be advertising for the photographer. --Rosenzweig τ 18:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
With no author, the license cannot be correct. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: very first edit shows "Source=self-made", hence it is logical to assume that the uploader is the author. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't meet the criteria expressed in the license. License applies to works between 1956 and 1996. Gikü (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to I withdraw my nomination per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeno Dsida.jpg. Gikü (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- The 1956 to 1996 part of license refers to artistic photographs, ordinary portrait photography was ineligible for copyright. There are several countries that did not see portrait photography as creative, it simply captured light bouncing of a sitter. --RAN (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anthony Jhons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures of old Soviet Leaders, medals, buttons, token, maps and other items not likely made by uploader cannot be given self licenses.
- File:Mikhail Gorbachev and Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kokchetav (1991).jpg
- File:Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev arrives at Kokchetav Airport (KOV, 1972).jpg
- File:Badge-Kokchetav (KP-8510).png
- File:Table medal, 150th Anniversary of Kokchetav (Kokshetau).png
- File:Raisa Maximovna Gorbacheva in Kokchetav (1991).jpg
- File:Elena Kuybysheva in Kokchetav, 1968.jpg
- File:Нагрудный знак «Почётный гражданин города Кокшетау».jpg
- File:The first large building of the Kokshetau-1 station.jpg
- File:Kokchetav district (map) — 1898.jpg
- File:Republican Memorial House-Museum of V.V.Kuibyshev in Kokchetav (Kokshetau, Kazakhstan).jpg
- File:Map of Kokshetau Region in Kazakhstan.jpg
- File:Prihod Kokshetau 2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%E2%80%94_1898.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Images of coats of arms of the times of the Russian Empire and the USSR (File:Table medal, 150th Anniversary of Kokchetav (Kokshetau).png, File:Badge-Kokchetav (KP-8510).png) can be placed under the license {{PD-RU-exempt}}. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- For card File:Kokchetav district (map) — 1898.jpg, license {{PD-RusEmpire}} is suitable. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- For File:Нагрудный знак «Почётный гражданин города Кокшетау».jpg — {{PD-KZ-exempt}}. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: most, per nomination, kept two. I did not keep the two files showing the Russian coats of arms because they looked like they were cropped out of photographs, and probably someone else's photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 20:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since) which is 100% accurate. However painting appears to be dated on its surface. Perhaps the uploader or the community can help identify the actual author, date and source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Actually "no license" is not "100% accurate" it has a license, but needs two licenses, one for the original painting, and one for the uploaded image which is now a derivative copy. The correct license would be PD-Colombia for the original painting. Colombia affords 80 years protection for anonymous works from the day of creation. Even when an image is in the public domain when you make derivative copy, the derivative copy should have a proper creative commons license, so both licenses are valid. When a derivative copy uses an attribution license, downstream users are legally required to attribute the derivative image to the person operating shutter. --RAN (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The painting must have been done after his death if it has the year of his death written as part of the painting. es:Museo del 20 de julio says the painting is anónimo siglo XIX, anonymous from the 19th century. That should be old enough, I'll take it until someone comes along with some evidence that it is not correct. --Rosenzweig τ 15:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GramescuBogdan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of physical photos for which the copyright status is not clear.
Gikü (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-RO-photo, Romania only gives 10 years of protection to images taken between 1956 and 1996. --RAN (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- *Published, not taken. Upper limit is never 1996 – it's either 1991 for isolated photos or 1985 for series of photos. And we don't have any clue about the publication date
except an estimation based on how old the photo looks like(actually that's not even relevant for publication, it is only for creation). Gikü (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- *Published, not taken. Upper limit is never 1996 – it's either 1991 for isolated photos or 1985 for series of photos. And we don't have any clue about the publication date
- Published means made available to the public, not appearing in a magazine of newspaper. I would say that 90% of pre-digital camera images have estimated dates, made in good faith, based on context and the apparent age of the people in the image. Even if the estimation is off by a decade, it would still fall in the range in the license template. --RAN (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain where they found the photos, whether scanned from a publication or some private archive. Therefore it cannot be determined if Template:PD-RO-photo is correctly applied and the photos have to be deleted imho. --Ellywa (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleted 2 files, as per [16]. Yann (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
These two have been in "No License" Since October 2021. They are both paintings of a person who has been dead a long time. Seeking help from uploader and/or community to date and attribute these paintings and the frames in an effort to retain the images.
- File:Miguel Arroyo Hurtado, Gobernador del Cauca.jpg
- File:Miguel Arroyo Hurtado, último Gobernador del Cauca Grande.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Colombia --RAN (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of RAN. --Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
May be a copyright violation. I cannot find the source of this image, let alone the licensing info. Quick Quokka [talk] 20:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I uploaded this image. Both the immediate source and a PD claim under COM:TOO are clearly present on the file's page. QuickQuokka, can you elaborate on your concern? Ezlev (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ezlev: I mean source as in who made it, and where they originally posted it. And the logo clearly meets the threshold of originality, as it is not just simple geometric shapes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickQuokka (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be TOO precedent here – see File:Sidetalk NYC logo.svg for a very similar example which ran on the enwiki main page through DYK. Ezlev (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ezlev: I mean source as in who made it, and where they originally posted it. And the logo clearly meets the threshold of originality, as it is not just simple geometric shapes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickQuokka (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
These may help:
Regards, HirnSpuk (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not show evidence the image is in PD per COM:EVID. Imho it is a complex shape and above TOO. So the image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/incategory:"PD Switzerland (Official documents)" (armed OR forces)
[edit]No matter how much Swiss army enthusiasts want their army badges to be as freely usable as those as the US army's, that is just really not possible. You do wonder how willfully blind the users of Swiss government PD template are when they overlook that it very clearly states it's only applicable to patent, decision, law, ordinance or means of payment
- File:CH Armed forces command Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Armed Forces Legal Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:Armed Forces Staff badge.svg
- File:CH Armed forces command Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Armed Forces Legal Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:Armed Forces College AFC badge.svg
- File:Armed Forces Logistics Organisation badge.svg
- File:Armed Forces Command Support Organisation badge.svg
- File:CH Special Forces Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Special Forces Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Command Support Corps Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Readiness Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Military Police Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH NBC Defence Corps Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Command Support Corps Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Sport Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Engineer Corps Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH NBC Defence Corps Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Air Defence Corps Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Rescue Corps Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Air Defence Corps Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH General Staff Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Air Force Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Psychological and Pedagogical Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Territorial Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Artillery Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Psychological and Pedagogical Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Military Intelligence Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Military Police Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Air Force Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Artillery Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Armour Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Territorial Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Infantry Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Infantry Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Rescue Corps Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Engineer Corps Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH Sport Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Military Intelligence Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Readiness Service Insigina (A).jpg
- File:CH Armour Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:CH General Staff Service Insigina (B,C).jpg
- File:Career NCO School badge.svg
- File:General Staff School badge.svg
- File:Military Academy at ETH Zurich badge.svg
- File:Central School badge.svg
- File:Command Support Brigade 41 badge.svg
- File:Medical Service badge.svg
- File:Logistic Brigade 1 badge.svg
- File:Regl 60 006d.pdf
- File:Kochrezepte-60006d.pdf
- File:Reglement Kochrezepte IMG 1566.JPG
- File:OF-9 CH camo.png
- File:OR-5b CH camo.png
- File:OF-9 CH.gif
- File:OR-5b CH.png
- File:OF-7 CH.gif
- File:OR-7 CH-Fourier.png
- File:OF-8 CH.gif
- File:OR-6 CH.png
- File:OR-8 CH camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH-Chief.png
- File:OR-6 CH camo.png
- File:OR-7 CH-Fourier camo.png
- File:OR-8 CH.png
- File:OF-8 CH camo.png
- File:OF-7 CH camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH-Master camo.png
- File:OR-5a CH.png
- File:OF-6 CH.gif
- File:OF-6 CH camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH-Chief camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH-Master.png
- File:OR-5a CH camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH.png
- File:OR-7 CH camo.png
- File:OR-9 CH camo.png
- File:OR-7 CH.png
- File:Special Forces Command badge.svg
- File:Special Forces Training Centre badge.svg
- File:Special Forces Command Staff Battalion badge.png
- File:Army Reconnaissance Detachment 10 badge.svg
- File:Grenadier Battalion 20 badge.png
- File:Special Detachment of the Military Police badge.svg
- File:Grenadier Battalion 30 badge.png
- File:Parachute Reconnaissance Company 17 badge.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Vera (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think they contain enough novel creative elements to be eligible for copyright under Swiss law. Swiss law does not allow copyrights for coats-of-arms for that reason, they combine public domain stock elements. I see chevrons and arrows and crossed swords on these insignias, just like a COA. --RAN (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- These are not coats of arms, and for the most part very much too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. I would be open for you to point out individual badges that you think would qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}, but that would then also be something that would need to change in the license description. It's absurd to say that File:Armed Forces Command Support Organisation badge.svg or File:Special Detachment of the Military Police badge.svg aren't complex. Vera (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Then we can agree to Delete on File:Armed Forces Command Support Organisation badge.svg as too complex for PD-ineligible. --RAN (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:TOO Switzerland the following works are protected “literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character”. To determine whether a design is below TOO is always a bit subjective. I agree with RAN that several of these images show standard elements and do not show a intellectual creative effort of the designer. Therefore I decided to keep the files with standard elements, but to delete all more complex designs. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheBirdsShedTears (talk · contribs)
[edit]This portrait gallery sources most of these images to one website, clearly marked (C) at source, others to various other sources. I was unable to confirm or verify any of the licenses for these images.
- File:Vice Admiral Faisal Rasul Lodhi.jpg
- File:Vice Admiral Zahid Ilyas.jpg
- File:Major General Asif Ghafoor, DG, ISPR.jpg
- File:Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa.jpg
- File:Major General Athar Abbas.jpg
- File:Major General Waheed Arshad.jpg
- File:Major General Shaukat Sultan.jpg
- File:Major General Rashid Qureshi.jpg
- File:Brigadier Ghazanfar Ali.jpg
- File:Major General Saleem Ullah.jpg
- File:Brigadier S M A Iqbal.jpg
- File:Major General Khalid Bashir.jpg
- File:Major General Jahangir Nasrullah.jpg
- File:Major General Riaz Ullah, DG, ISPR Major General Riaz Ullah December 1988 - September 1991.jpg
- File:Brigadier Fazal ur Rehman.jpg
- File:Brigadier A R Siddiqui, GD, ISPR.jpg
- File:Lieutenant Colonel Masud Ahmed DG ISPR 1966 - 1967.jpg
- File:Colonel Z A Suleri Nov 1965 - Aug 1966.jpg
- File:Commander Maqbool Hussain.jpg
- File:Colonel Shabaz Khan.jpg
- File:Rabia Zubari.jpg
- File:Sitara-i-Jur’at.png
- File:Subh-e-Azadi poem.png
- File:Morel mushroom (guchichi).jpg
- File:Coronavirus preventions.png
- File:John deo no. 24.jpg
- File:Malyala Rajaiah.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete everything up to and including File:Colonel Shabaz Khan.jpg. The disclaimer page for those makes it clear only the five photographs at the bottom of the page are released on a CC licence, stating You can re-use the content given under the head "Content for public use" on this page, it's not the standard "pretty much everything on this website" disclaimer you'd normally get. FDW777 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am concerned that they may not have the rights to those images as they also say "no warranty" on the rights pages and there's no indication that they took any of them or own the copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep one's identified by FDW777's research and keep File:Commander Maqbool Hussain.jpg and keep Colonel Shabaz Khan.jpg as PD-Pakistan and any others prior to 1972. Pakistan only gives 50 years protection from when made public. I added that license to some. We have to assume a government has the right to release images on their own government website, the released cc images appear to be official government portraits. We accept the right for the US government to release images to Flickr Commons under the same good faith assumption. --RAN (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:Subh-e-Azadi poem.png and File:Morel mushroom (guchichi).jpg that do not fir any PD license. --RAN (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Coronavirus preventions.png seems to have crept into this batch nomination. The stated reason for deletion makes no sense HOWEVER WHO publications are governed by CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO licence which is unacceptable to Commons so delete anyway! --Headlock0225 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Morel mushroom (guchichi).jpg also seems to have crept into this batch nomination. I can see nothing wrong with it. It is not claiming to be PD - it would seem to be correctly licenced CC BY-SA 4.0. --Headlock0225 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Subh-e-Azadi poem.png also seems to have crept into this batch nomination. While it is clearly not from a portrait gallery the source is a collection of Urdu poetry. No atttribution or date or licence is given in the source. With the lack of information, we should delete. --Headlock0225 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all, except for the mushroom photo, which seemed to be the only one with a correct license tag, a proper date and no copyright problems. --Rosenzweig τ 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheBirdsShedTears (talk · contribs)
[edit]Now-unused images for spam articles on non-notable people (see w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:TheBirdsShedTears: UPE with autopatrolled and NPP rights)
* Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)