Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/02/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I uploaded it by mistake Cinemacity111 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & dupe. --Achim55 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав Redich69 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав Redich69 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Загружено по ошибке Vikiredaktor (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ashif jangi (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-83-565_Wolmirstedt_1997_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Wolmirstedt. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Nicht genutzt" ist kein Löschgrund. Ich hab die Vorlage "NowSVG" eingesetzt, das ist die übliche Vorgehensweise. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of free copyright. webpage indicates: "Todos Los Derechos Reservados © 2021 Infobae" ELEKHHT 00:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; CV, unsupported license claim -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
By Max Fisher May 15, 2013 - no evidence of free CC copyright. ELEKHHT 00:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Foto propia de JFK, por qué la sube a Commons, se gana mucho vendiendola. 191.126.177.72 01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Frank Hurley/NY Daily News Archive/Getty Images. --RAN (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per above; absurd false claims by uploader -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
not own work: copied from this file retrived here: https://www.librofilia.it/intervista-a-dario-pontuale-vivere-tra-lettura-critica-letteraria-e-scrittura/ Bradipo Lento (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It is, in fact, not my own work Cgimbel2 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This is, in fact, not my own work Cgimbel2 (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Bad name| [[:File:724fe5 c0a8e96e020e47099e728130592d52a5.webp]]}}
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Photo of a newspaper. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Meant to speedy delete that as a copyright violation, I must have clicked the wrong shortcut link.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
bad quality photograph of person with no ency value (possibly a joke), out of scope. Pibwl (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted OOS. (Text made it clear image meant as personal insult/prank) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
App screenshot. Unclear whether the images shown are from the uploader or from all app users, and if the former, whether the uploader intended to release them all as CC-Attribution. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 16:14, 7 February 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo of a cricket competition, which is over the threshold of originality. It's highly unlikely that the it's the uploader's own workd or that they have any rights to release it under a CC license. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by NahidSultan at 17:32, 7 February 2022 UTC: Mass deletion of pages added by Nitwik --Krdbot 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Mirer (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the source file (File:Ezekiel Elliott 2016.jpg) it is stated that the file (and license) was checked back on 2016-10-13 by User:Ww2censor. --Mirer (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --shizhao (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Mirer (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source file (File:Ryan Tannehill 2015.jpg) was tagged on 2015-09-14 as reviewed. --Mirer (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --shizhao (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Mirer (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source file was tagged on 2016-08-16 as checked. --Mirer (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --shizhao (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Mirer (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source file (File:Aaron Donald 2015.jpg) is marked as checked on 2015-09-21. Mirer (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --shizhao (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded without permission from the photographer and the minor in the picture. Tim Yxy (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Ankry at 08:35, 8 February 2022 UTC: Instagram is not free. Likely out of scope. Regardless whether VRT rationale is vaid or not. --Krdbot 14:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of an existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The second file is File:New York Transit Museum (14823773095).jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The second file is File:NYC Rockaway Excursion (14843584633).jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The second file is File:R11-R34 8013 at Rockaway Park - Beach 116th Street Station.jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Quién es? 191.126.177.72 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Quién es? 191.126.177.72 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Quién es? 191.126.177.72 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Quién es? 191.126.177.72 01:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Libre de subir? 191.126.177.72 01:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Propaganda 191.126.177.72 01:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio o foto antigua? 191.126.177.72 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 13 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 07:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 13 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 07:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 13 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 07:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 13 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 07:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 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 07:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 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 07:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 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 07:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 13 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 07:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 13 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 07:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 13 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 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Karo pharma small.png. No usage on Wikimedia projects. mattbr 07:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Invalid audio 78.21.21.2 07:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Please kill this side. Mediatus (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt / blank redirect. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
N O T I N S T A G R A M Dronebogus (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:Cdfbvcer.jpg
- File:Htdi re.png
- File:Logginger.png
- File:Barerer.png
- File:Bredie.png
- File:DdfDE.png
- File:Ddf derer.png
- File:Satref 1.png
- File:Srevder.png
- File:Ssrfr.png
- File:Téléchargement 01.png
- File:Beterhvg.png
- File:Asmenjen.png
- File:Mon betre.png
- File:Mon travaile dab.png
- File:Tpdef.png
- File:Derbybb.png
- File:Babiloune.png
- File:Asder.png
- File:Siter.png
- File:555d5d55d.png
- File:Hetyet.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
User is continuing to upload screenshots of what look like emails from companies, with no description or context. None are in use. I've speedy-tagged the ones that have clearly copyrighted content, but the remainder are still out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Im490.png
- File:Mplree.png
- File:Deere.png
- File:Photofgfdef.jpg
- File:Iymptssr.png
- File:Magie.png
- File:Tgrefdr.png
- File:Rseul.png
Lord Belbury (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE screenshots of emails from companies. Text wouldn't be public domain either.
Belbury (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In additional to the potential copyright issues, without context, explanation, or description that might indicate some educational value, these files (like all the previously deleted ones) are outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Jan Myšák (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope for Commons, or no clear indication of what was going to be making the iage in scope — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- how is it out of scope its just a drawn scar im sure someone will use it one day also i need it to Juuudfufhbf (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of COM:EDUSE, questionable personal artwork. --Achim55 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- wikimedia commons has pics of REAL BLEEDING SCARS but mine is getting removed? Juuudfufhbf (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - out of scope as there is no real prospect of being used on other projects. Herby talk thyme 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
unused self-promotional vita Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Private picture and out of scope. //LevandeMänniska (talk), 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Karmakolle as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7. File is in use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version of this map, this one was badly stitched together. Karmakolle (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Those are two files from different sources and obviously also different physical copies of this map. There's no need to delete this one. --Rosenzweig τ 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
duplicate Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Duplicate of which other file? --Túrelio (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
this is the better File --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: we don't delete raster files just because there is now also a vector version available. --Rosenzweig τ 14:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-91-020_Pretzsch_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Pretzsch. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep To all the png and jpg versions, there are subtle differences in the color between the two. --RAN (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- Es kommt doch nicht auf irgendwelche leichten Farbunterschiede an, sondern darum ob der Wappeninhalt derselbe ist! Und wenn das der Fall ist handelt es sich um ein und dasselbe Wappen von Pretzsch. Somit liegt eine Redundanz vor und das überflüssige Wappen kann entfernt werden, da es sowieso nirgends auf keiner Seite gezeigt wird. Der Ort Pretzsch hat nur ein Wappen und dann reicht auch nur eine exzellent präsentierte Wappendatei völlig aus! --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Rosenzweig τ 14:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Less than sharp image; this is something we have a number of better quality versions on Commons so this one isn't needed Tabercil (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. (* Sigh *) Superfluous to requirements. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as stated on [1]: "English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects may be deleted. See also: Commons:Nudity." --Neozoon (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing special about this penis and I think we have better images. --MGA73 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Appeals to prurient interests only. Actricalian (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Appears to offer nothing we don't already have, see Commons:Nudity. —RP88 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
not encyclopedic Syced (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete numerous alternatives already available. CrossPlains (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 11:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
User requestion deletion of mistaken upload file Cliffem (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
These are non-simple logos.
- File:Oeko-Tex MySTeP Logo.png
- File:Oeko-Tex Detox to Zero Logo.png
- File:Oeko-Tex Eco Passport Logo.png
- File:Oeko-Tex Leather Standard Logo.jpg
- File:Oeko-Tex Made in Green Logo.png
- File:Oeko-Tex STeP Logo.png
- File:Oeko-Tex Standard 100 Logo.png
Regasterios (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Михаил Чудеснов (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused screenshots and rendering, no educational value, out of scope and uncertain copyright status.
- File:Imported model.png
- File:Select material library sm.png
- File:Fbx import dialog.png
- File:Import fbx file dialog.png
- File:Import fbx.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Suren Gunarathna (talk · contribs)
[edit]massive collection of professional photos from various Sri Lanka tourism sites on Facebook. User had uploaded copyright violations before.
- File:Boats in the river.jpg
- File:Yala safari.jpg
- File:Leopard in yala national park.jpg
- File:Elephant in Sri Lanka.jpg
- File:Safari in Yala National park.jpg
- File:Temple of Sri Lanka.jpg
- File:Beach Sri Lanka.jpg
- File:Coconut trees near to sea.jpg
- File:Peacock Sri lanka.jpg
- File:Manel Flower.jpg
- File:Sea and the trees.jpg
- File:Whales sri lanka.jpg
- File:Beach and boats.jpg
- File:Galle srilanka.jpg
- File:Beach Sri lanka.jpg
- File:Elephants of Sri Lanka.jpg
- File:Leopard sri lanka.jpg
- File:Boats in the sea.jpg
- File:Beaches sri lanka.jpg
- File:Beach sri lanka.jpg
- File:Beach sri laka.jpg
- File:Beauty of Sri lanka.jpg
- File:Galle sri lanka.jpg
- File:Trincomalee sri lanka.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tharushiyaagarvini (talk · contribs)
[edit]images from various sites, partly cropped to disguise origin.
- File:Evening Beach.png
- File:Colour.png
- File:Mango.png
- File:River.png
- File:Grateful.png
- File:Water falls.png used 2017 as background: https://www.facebook.com/1424305537862158/photos/pcb.1781127105513331/1781123515513690/?type=3
- File:Coconuts.png https://www.alamy.com/beautiful-beach-of-sri-lankaview-with-azure-sea-and-palm-trees-image214928825.html?irclickid=zYd3zTUpqxyIRBs3f2zLu1xeUkGUHP09C1LeyE0&irgwc=1
- File:Big stone.png https://tineye.com/search/3af0e9e54dc7cab28c64ad6f3e9b57f0a078fba4?sort=size&order=desc&page=1
- File:Leefs.png
- File:Nature of srilanka.png https://tineye.com/search/526da981760bdeb9e9ad097f1e0811681fe3bd0d?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1
- File:Beauty of srilanka.png e.g. https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-herd-of-elephants-bathing-in-the-jungle-river-of-sri-lanka-168018494.html?irclickid=zYd3zTUpqxyIRBs3f2zLu1xeUkGUHN1tC1LeyE0&irgwc=1
Polarlys (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Switzerland-photo, Switzerland did not award copyrights for portrait photography until 2020. --RAN (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: to use {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}, the file should have been uploaded before April 1, 2020, which it was not (it was uploaded on December 11, 2020). There is {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} for "simple" photographs without an individual character, but I don't see this photograph as having no individual character. It might be PD-old of some kind, but I'm not given anything to determine if that is the case or not (besides the obviously wrong 2014 date), there's no date of creation, no place of creation, nothing about a possible publication. I only know that Marie-Louise Goering lived from 1876 to 1973, and I cannot say if this photo is at least 120 years old so that it would qualify for the {{PD-old-assumed}} tag. So I'll delete the file per the precautionary principle. If anyone wants to request undeletion, please provide some information that admins can actually work with when trying to determine copyright status. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anatomyinfo (talk · contribs)
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Anatomyinfo as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: low quality. Converting to DR as uploader request deletion after 7 days.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, I tend to agree: in my opinion quality is not enough good. Taivo (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Instagram 191.126.177.72 01:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Il s'agit d'une photo volée (stolen picture) d'un compte Instagram. Le droit d'auteur n'est donc pas respecté. Merci de la supprimer et de veiller à ce que la personne ne rajoute pas d'autres photos sans licence. --2A01:CB04:506:F200:5A1:7CE9:955D:D209 14:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, no proof of permission. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Malaysia_flag_icon.svg John emil hernandez (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:COURTESY/{{Db-self}}. Unused and redundant with File:Flag of Malaysia.svg. -M.nelson (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of an existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The second file is File:NYC Rockaway Excursion (14637090048).jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy deleted and redirected by Túrelio as per COM:CSD#F8. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of an existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The second file is File:R40 Slant Cab (14637222437).jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted and redirected per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of an existing file. Not properly named. Davidng913 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The second file is File:R40 Slant Interior (14637061110).jpg. Vcohen (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted and redirected per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope. Till (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 46.132.191.211 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. Not blatant spam, but out of scope as an unused logo. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
3D cation+anion pic(not crystal structure), have File:Smithsonite-unit-cell-3D-vdW.png as alternative. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The unused file redirect File:Smithsonite-3D-balls.png should get deleted as well. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, unused negative photo Pibwl (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a press picture service (Horstmüller Pressebilderdienst https://www.foto-horstmueller.de/). The "own work" refers to the photographing of the newspaper image - copyrights violated. --91.89.129.11 09:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a press picture service (Horstmüller Pressebilderdienst https://www.foto-horstmueller.de/). The "own work" refers to the photographing of the newspaper image - copyrights violated. 91.89.129.11 07:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Not necessary redirect. And can be confused. -ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 23:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
likely copyvio, screen capture Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, copyvio Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
nie ma odpowiednio opisanych praw autorskich Azazgor (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 17:29, 7 March 2022 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 20:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and:
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (21).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (215).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (218).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (37).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (42).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (16).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (17).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (116).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (52).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (129).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (130).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (166).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (171).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (172).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (173).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (174).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (178).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (181).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (204).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (213).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (216).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (217).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (221).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (225).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (227).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (228).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (24).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (25).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (39).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (84).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (85).jpg
- File:Магілёўскі абласны краязнаўчы музей. Экспазіцыя (86).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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Divimart Pulilan
[edit]Derivative work copyright violation. This mall just opened last year, and we do not have COM:FOP Philippines right now. COM:FOP Philippines seems to have fell into limbo now in our legislature, with representatives and senators focused on more pressing bills, and some of our senators and congressmen focused on w:en:2022 Philippine general election-related matter.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- On Divimart, may I interject that since I am a mechanical engineer, yet, I have not photographer experiences of the new fad or fashion of Supermarkets, inter alia, building; many businessmen had great headache with architects' exorbitant fees; Calumpit building constructions Puregold and the Complex - I interviewed a foreman and excavator operator, and told me that nowadays, almost all Puregold buildings are pre-fabricated and no architect is involved; however, my humble view may be a surmise, conjecture or guess, and regrettably, I stay neutral since I have no solid proof to contest the deletion; but a birds eye view of all Divimarts buildings, will convince one to say that they are copy cats or pre-fabs; very sincerely FBenjr123 (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- @Fbenjr123: these are "copycats" as these are designed by one entity. Similar to most SM malls and outlets, more than 50% designed by Jose Siao Ling & Associates (JSLA) Architects while others are from Arquitectonica. Even then, the entire ensemble of DiviMart buildings is subject to the building designer's copyright. If the courts do not allow people to build their mansions or houses in exact DiviMart-style, then the entire DiviMart building portfolio is copyrighted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Apparently, there is no special architectural properties for DiviMart, and it seems it is a minimalist common establishment-type building that can be easily copied and reproduced as an another building (provided that the mall chain name is not trademark-pirated). So, this building is safe to be depicted commercially, without designer's copyright licensing permission. {{PD-structure}} applies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Encik Tekateki as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own works , https://muzzaica.com/zdjecia/estirpe3.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion or more research, as our image was uploaded in 2009 and the external hit is undated so far and has lower resolution. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Fleischberge ohne wissenschaftlichen Zweck. Mountains of meat without scientific purpose. Sciencia58 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree
Speedy delete Yes, this file should be deleted. It does not have any realistic educational use or scientific purpose. In addition, the file is also of very low quality and there are many other similar files on Wikimedia Commons that are of much higher quality that can be used instead. These are well-reasoned requests for the file to be deleted. Thank you. WikiFan (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- From the same uploader: File:A Penis Ring Placed on an Uncircumcised Human Penis.jpg. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it’s gross, yes, but it’s also the only image we have showing the erectile process while wearing a cock ring. Dronebogus (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Again, as you can see, the file is of very poor and/or low quality and has no scientific value or purpose. Other files on Commons that are similar in nature can be used that are much more detailed and higher quality. Really no information will be lost if this file were to be removed. In addition, I am asking for this file to be deleted as a courtesy deletion and would like the illustration removed completely. WikiFan (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment "Other files on Commons that are similar in nature", what files that have not been presented? Keep Per previous dr in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ringmaster32571. File has good quality, good purpose and value and per dronebogus comments. Tm (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleting collage. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.116.60.235 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you and I completely agree with the deletion of this file. I am the uploader and am requesting its complete removal from Commons as a courtesy deletion. I am hoping an administrator can help with this request. WikiFan (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable uploader with innumerable previous copyvios. No reason to believe any of these low-res/web-size screengrabs or DW are own works.
- File:Verbeeck-Theo-RSCAnderlecht.jpg
- File:Wtigoor-Dessel-Jef-Luyten-1.jpg
- File:Wtigoor-Dessel-Jef-Luyten-2.jpg
- File:StedelijkSportstadion-Izegem.png
- File:Stade-de-Visé (de la Cité de l'Oie).jpg
- File:Mijnstadion-Beringen.jpg
- File:DeSchalk-stadion.jpg
- File:LVS-articlefinaleCDB1935.jpg
- File:Photo-Avis-Matricules-23-12-1926.jpg
- File:Photo-Petit-Heysel.jpg
- File:Photo-Roberto-Leone.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pourquoi supprimer Photo-Avis-Matricule-23-12-1926. J'ai pris ce cliché moi-même en consultant les Archives Royales du Royaumes !à Bruxelles !!! Même réflexion pour l'article relatif à la finale de la Coupe de Belgique 1935 !!! La Photo Roberto Leone (décédé en février 2022) a été prise par '''Thierry Portier''' (Photographe de presse professionnel qui m'a expressément donné l'autorisation de la placer sur Wikipédia). Dans le même raisonnement, les autres prises de vue ont fait l'objet d'une demande orale de ma part auprès des site et/ou clubs concernés (journalistes pendant plus de 20 ans dans le football belge). Faudrait arrêter de saboter le travail de ceux qui tentent d'améliorer Wikipédia avec des règles idiotes car sans fondement. Relisez l'Esprit des Lois de Montesquieu au lieu de jouer au bête gendarme ! Shanon11 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't want to follow the rules and policies of Commons, then don't upload here. If you upload photos by other photographers, they need to give written permission via COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation, photo was used in multiple press sources online, several years ago, eg. https://noticiascyber.com/doctor-cesar-vazquez-es-el-candidato-a-la-gobernacion-por-el-proyecto-dignidad/ Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation, no reason to believe uploader has rights to video. Jthistle38 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio. – Pbrks (t • c) 22:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Support — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal image Whpq (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 46.132.191.211 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G1 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Anticomposite. Ruthven (msg) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Png file duplicate of File:Google Chrome icon (February 2022).svg Hajoon0102 💬 12:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Under copyright Culex (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
violation du droit d'auteur / copyright violation : copie de https://leblogdenestor.com/larbre-creatif-danne-marie-vesco/ Habertix (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. ~Cybularny Speak? 22:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
low resolution, missing EXIF, unlikely own work
- File:Lonely sailing in sea.jpg
- File:Fisherman boats.jpg
- File:A view from hanthana.jpg
- File:Village walk hatton.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; pcp. --Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The uploader is a spammer and unlikely to be the copyright holder of this image. MarioGom (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
speedydelete Rai Fernandes Foto (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Crude MS Paint doodle— not educationally useful or even in use Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no COM:EDUSE for this file. Marbletan (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
No COM:EDUSE. Commons is not your personal free web host. Achim55 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- This was just a leak I released a while ago, I just uploaded it to use as a image for Wikimedia Ericcartman3476 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably also a copyright infringement of whatever the right hand side is a "leak" of? --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, out of project scope due to bad quality. It does not illustrate the buildings and for rainbow flag in Valladolid we have file:Bandera Orgulo Valladolid (02).jpg, taken on the same day. Taivo (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Ok, don't worry. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
non-notable individual, unused in any wiki Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Also a possible copyright violation due to the Facebook string in the metadata. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: already deleted by Wutsje. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, non-notable individual Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the VTRS ticket noted on this file on 22 October 2021 but not completed, this picture has every appearance of being a photocopy or similar from a newspaper. That suggests it to be a copyright violation.
In addition it has no camera details, likely confirming the copyright issue. I have asked for a full deletion discussion because of the VTRS ticket, otherwise I woudl have suggested speedy deletion as an obvious copyright violation Timtrent (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio. VTRS ticket not confirmed. Timtrent (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Facebook 191.126.177.72 01:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
English: 𝓤𝓰𝔀𝓾 𝓙𝓾𝓭𝓮 𝓝𝓷𝓪𝓶𝓭𝓲, better known as 𝓑𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓑𝓾𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓻 𝓣𝓲𝓴, is a Nigerian rapper, singer, songwriter and record producer. He started his music career in 2014, and is renowned for rapping and singing in English, Igbo and Yoruba language. He would be hitting y'all with lots of dazzling bangers and many debut studio albums back to back. His motto, still remains "𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓢𝓴𝔂 𝓘𝓼 𝓝𝓸𝓽 𝓞𝓾𝓻 𝓛𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽 " [ T.S.I.N.O.L ]. 191.126.177.72 01:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Biographical essay with several pages of photographs at the end, including one copyrighted to Icon Film Club. Self-promotional and out of COM:SCOPE if the uploader is the subject, likely copyright violation if not. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. No COM:EDUSE for this file and there are copyright issues. Marbletan (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Unused random photo of nondescript tooth (?), no context, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused text table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dancingcentaur (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. And likely not own works: low-res web-sized images with disparate quality and styles.
- File:Cherry Blossoms 1.jpg
- File:Sebastian with mother, Virginia Sebastian.JPG
- File:Sebastian with long-time teacher, William Durbin.JPG
- File:Theatrical Argentine Tango.JPG
- File:Sebastian with Astrid Wenke.JPG
- File:Chip Sebastian.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional corporate image, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN: NOT INSTAGRAM Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN: NOT INSTAGRAM HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN: NOT INSTAGRAM Dronebogus (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No source info (it’s a lovely and sexy photo though, good taste uploader, just provide source info and a valid copyright) Dronebogus (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete suspicious. Farsi numerals for Eva Elfie + User upload history which is poor: many already deleted copyvios. Anyway, I agree with with the nominator, good taste ;) 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Not frikin instagram Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio - link Enyavar (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Not useful as .pdf file in Wikimedia projects, so I suggest deleting. Velma (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This file is an exact duplicate of File:Carte viols et agression.pdf and therefore unnecessary and could even be speedily deleted. (Though I agree with you that it shouldn't be used as a .pdf, the other file can't be deleted too at the moment because it is in use.) Marbletan (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation; painting created 1979; no freedom of panorama.
- File:010 Stiefenhofen, 16.08.2011.jpg
- File:Chorbogen, Jugendstil - panoramio.jpg
- File:Langhaus - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sehenswerter Jugendstil - panoramio.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, name of photo studio in metadata. Image also on his Website with full copyright protection and no CC licensing. 217.239.4.223 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I got permissions to use it HWoll (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- To "use" it or to publish it under Creative Commons licensing? I would be surprised if a professional photo studio gave you that permission.
- Either way, you will have to send that permission from the photographer to the Commons Support Team, and you can't upload it as "own work" and put your name in there. --217.239.4.223 14:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Author www.coverface.de — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.116.20.130 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
out of Scope: unused promotional pictur of unidentified park location in Poland Enyavar (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
out of Scope: unused promotional pictur of unidentified park location in Poland Enyavar (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
This looks a lot like a Google Maps terrain map, which would be copyrighted. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of nondescript sign, no context/description, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo by non-contributor. Yahya (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, little educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Б.Өлзийдэлгэр (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very unlikely to be own works: low-res/web-size (or even thumbnail sized) screengrab diagrams with disparate quality and styles.
- File:Qwr.jpg
- File:Ljk.png
- File:Eeffc.jpg
- File:3th.png
- File:Fdh.jpg
- File:Hk.png
- File:Jdgh.png
- File:Dns-and-ipv62.jpg
- File:What-is-a-dns-leak1.png
- File:Uit1017-66-638.jpg
- File:Оорх.png
- File:Dns-server.gif
- File:Dns-lengnt-600x337.png
- File:How DNS Works.jpg
- File:An example of theoretical DNS recursion.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that these file all appear to be falsely claimed as own work. Marbletan (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-83-320_Hoetensleben_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Hötensleben. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-83-298_Rottmersleben_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Rottmersleben. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-82-015_Holzweissig_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Holzweißig. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-140_Doernitz_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Dörnitz. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-035_Elbe-Parey_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Elbe-Parey. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine zweite exzellente PNG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-040_Genthin_COA.png). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit dieser PNG-Version verknüpft und die angegebene PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Außerdem ist die zu löschende Datei nicht heraldisch korrekt, da das amtliche Wappen eine goldene Bordierung haben muss. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keine Einwände gegen die Löschung / No objections to the deletion. dbenzhuser (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Die Korrektheit lässt sich erst beurteilen, wenn die Blasonierung vorliegt. Leider fehlt diese bei beiden Dateibeschreibungen. Im Weiteren fällt auf, dass File:DE-ST 15-0-86-040 Genthin COA.png eine recht kleine Auflösung hat – und ursprünglich eine größere Auflösung besaß. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ich bin derjenige der diese Datei einmal eingestellt hat und jetzt erkläre, dass das im Löschgrund angegebene Wappen das bessere bzw. amtliche Wappen dieser Stadt darstellt. Die korrekte Blasonierung findet sich auf der entsprechenden Artikelseite über diese Stadt! --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Die Blasonierung sollte auch immer bei den Dateibeschreibungen mit aufgenommen werden. Und bei de:Genthin#Wappen fehlt noch der Beleg für die Blasonierung. Ich stimme hier zu, dass File:Wappen Genthin.png nicht zur Blasonierung passt und auch eine seltsame Tingierung hat mit den beiden verschiedenen Goldtinkturen, während File:DE-ST 15-0-86-040 Genthin COA.png besser ist, wenngleich die Auflösung ziemlich gering ist für eine PNG-Datei. Es bleibt für mich auch unklar, warum die ursprüngliche Fassung vom 23. August 2015 durch die jetzige Fassung vom 29. Dezember 2021 bei File:DE-ST 15-0-86-040 Genthin COA.png ersetzt worden ist. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ich bin derjenige der diese Datei einmal eingestellt hat und jetzt erkläre, dass das im Löschgrund angegebene Wappen das bessere bzw. amtliche Wappen dieser Stadt darstellt. Die korrekte Blasonierung findet sich auf der entsprechenden Artikelseite über diese Stadt! --Ollemarkeagle (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: from what I saw in the version history of the book, this version was used in literature, so even if it does not match the official definition, it's not totally irrelevant or fake. --Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-080_Jerichow_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Jerichow. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente PNG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-145_Koerbelitz_COA.png). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der PNG-Version verknüpft und die JPG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Körbelitz. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente PNG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-145_Lostau_COA.png). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der PNG-Version verknüpft und die JPG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Lostau. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-145_Moeser_2010_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Möser. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existierte bereits eine SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-86-145_Moeser_2010_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und angegebene SVG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Möser. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-90-135_Eichstedt_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Eichstedt. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-90-070_Klaeden_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Kläden. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-81_Altmarkkreis_Salzwedel_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Altmarkkreis Salzwedel. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-85-330_Neinstedt_COA.svg). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Neinstedt. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente PNG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-88-150_Kabelsketal_COA.png). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der PNG-Version verknüpft und die JPG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Kabelsketal. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente PNG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen (DE-ST_15-0-88-365_Teutschenthal_COA.png). Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der PNG-Version verknüpft und die JPG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Teutschenthal. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, the coat of arms isn't duplicate, it are different file types due to history. Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Diese Wappendatei kann gelöscht werden, es existiert eine exzellente SVG-Datei von diesem dargestellten Wappen File:DEU Stolberg (Harz) COA.svg. Alle Verlinkungen zu den unterschiedlichen Wikipedien sind mit der SVG-Version verknüpft und die PNG-Datei wird daher nicht mehr genutzt und kann entfernt werden. Beide Dateien zeigen einunddasselbe Wappen von Stolberg. Ollemarkeagle (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
_COA.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- Delete klar ist die SVG-Datei besser. (Ich bin der Ersteller des PNG-Bildes.) — OwenBlacker (talk; please ping me in replies) 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Its usage may still be possible, so this deletion request doesn't agree to COM:Scope, the coat of arms is within project scope. No valid reason for deletion. Doc Taxon (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Doc Taxon. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
File:ضيف الله بن سالم الشامي الهويملي من مزينة من قبيلة حرب اشتهر بالشجاعة والكرم والفروسية شارك في معارك الملك عبدالعزيز لت 2013-05-04 17-02.jpg
[edit]
Redirection is not necessary, the text has absolutely nothing to do with the image B08 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Foto vieja 191.126.177.72 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, la foto es de 1989. Tiene una propuesta de justificación para su solicitud de supresión? Bwoodcock (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Foto de foto 191.126.177.72 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, la foto es un escaneo de un negativo T-Max. Tiene una propuesta de justificación para su solicitud de eliminación? ¿O para cualquiera de la otra serie de eliminaciones inexplicables que acaba de proponer? Bwoodcock (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work? 191.126.177.72 01:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Many of the photographs on that page are ones I took at BMUG events. The B&W are T-Max, the color are Ektachrome. Mostly shot with a Nikon 90mm fixed lens. Same goes for the other that you proposed to delete. Bwoodcock (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Author request deletion. Not satisfied with its quality now. Lt2818 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Freely licensed files may not be withdrawn by the author after more than one week. If you wish to provide a higher-quality version, you can simply overwrite this one (if it is fundamentally the same content, just higher-quality). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
More likely above originality threshold in the UK. The right side of the organization's logo uses different colors and various shapes to form a person. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sufficient effort (from a UK perspective) is likely to have been expended and the logo is potentially sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection in its country of origin (the UK). mattbr 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted image, if en:File:Flag of Phoenix, Arizona.svg is anything to go by. FDW777 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted image according to en:File:Flag of Salt Lake City (2006-2020).svg. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Starlink Satellites Overhead.tif vip (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep @Don-vip: We can keep both copies, they're different file formats. Also note that the jpeg version is in use on enwiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as Mike Peel. We don't delete images like this because there's another copy in a different format. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about the format, it's about the resolution. I don't see the point of keeping a version with a lower resolution. vip (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- "I don't see the point of" is the worst software design principle known. Is that because there is no point, or because of limitations in your vision for it? We could (quite reasonably) use https://www.iau.org/static/archives/images/publicationjpg/ann22007a.jpg as a source for a 4k JPEG of this, the same size as the TIFF. (If anything, I'd be inclined towards deleting the TIFF.) But although TIFF has some benefits as an "archive master" format, it broadly sucks for everyday use. Most of our work here is directly web based, and MediaWiki simply works better for JPEG sources than it does for PNG and TIFF, especially when small-size thumbnails are requested on the fly. This is just one reason why we don't hold with one version "superseding" another. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
原作者希望刪除 弟魯 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: This COM:CSD#G7 request was valid when submitted (3 days old). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, no educational value, out of scope. Test upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Graph of a well-known mathematical function, context is abundantly clear from the image itself. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
includes copyright violation (File:Aerial view of Milton, Ontario.png) Polarlys (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Reformierte Kirche Scuol
[edit]copyright violation; artist of stained glass windows died in 1979; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Glasfenster in der reformierten Kirche Scuol 1.jpg
- File:Glasfenster in der reformierten Kirche Scuol.jpg
- File:San Göri Interieur.JPG
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2050. --Rosenzweig τ 22:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation; artist died in 1979, no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2050. --Rosenzweig τ 22:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Badkirche St. Moritz
[edit]copyright violation; artist died in 1979; no freedom of panorama.
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment According to COM:FOP Switzerland there is freedom of panorama. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No: It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. See Accessible to the public, last sentence. --Martin Sg. (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 17:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- No: It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27. See Accessible to the public, last sentence. --Martin Sg. (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2050. --Rosenzweig τ 22:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Karmakolle as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7. File is in use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --RAN (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I want to remove the ugly black borders. CropTool won't allow it, so I made a new version myself, but the upload is taking ages. Karmakolle (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: apparently now replaced by File:Martin de Tailly, Bruxella nobilissima Brabantiae civitas, 1640 clean.png. --Rosenzweig τ 21:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio, taken from https://www.deviantart.com/lasarasu. If uploader is the same as artist, then COM:VRT is needed for each image. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused text table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
out of scope animated gif, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Uploader contributed a lot of images of this marching band, but this one has a watermark, the other ones don't. No indication uploader is creator -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Apparently a photo by professional photographer Jane Eakins from Newry, Northern Ireland. --Rosenzweig τ 07:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Atticall Homecoming Parade after All Ireland in 2010.jpg but not in same format. Quality of the jpg is better too. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Lower quality and redundant. -M.nelson (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect attribution; published in Daily Mail and no evidence they have relicensed CC Bri (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot snippets, no educational value, out of scope. And showing just program code, should be in wiki-markup if needed.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
unused, doesn't seem to be in a scope, one of two uploads Pibwl (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
unidentified individual, non notable Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope file uploaded from https://www.deviantart.com/ieph/art/Alternate-Coat-of-Arms-of-the-Philippines-368246605 Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope file uploaded from https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/2wacy3/united_monarchy_of_america/ Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope file uploaded from https://www.deviantart.com/regicollis/art/An-American-Monarchy-Coat-of-arms-403148445 Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope file uploaded from https://www.deviantart.com/alb-burguete/art/Great-coat-of-arms-of-North-America-677824971 Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. — Racconish 💬 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
uploaded request work is deleted Cliffem (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not uploader's work. A atlas of the USSR. — Redboston 01:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not own work; without a valid source, unable to determine if it is PD or not. -M.nelson (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 11:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The owner of the file requested it to be deleted Skezo2 (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a random logo with no educational purpose (COM:SCOPE). Might also exceed COM:TOO UK. -M.nelson (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo by non-contributor. Out of commons scope. Yahya (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: low-res/web-size DW of other well-known images. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Masti (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation(https://www.facebook.com/1692743790952184/photos/a.1692746757618554/3084385465121336) 円周率３パーセント (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Could be actually uploader's own work; if copied from FB file will be missing EXIF, but here the EXIF remains intact. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The FB version is much smaller and without Exif data. I found a larger version (same size as the Commons file) uploaded a bit later linked from here, but also without Exif. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res photo of nondescript keypad, no context, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: may yet prove useful in Category:Ziegler vehicles. --Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Uploads by Alejandro de Hierro
[edit]- File:Image2vector 39.svg
- File:Image2vector 32.svg
- File:Image2vector 31.svg
- File:Image2vector 25.svg
- File:Image2vector 24.svg
- File:Image2vector 23.svg
- File:Nim1-removebg.png
- File:Image2vector 3.svg
- File:Image2vector 9.svg
- File:Nim blanco y negro.svg
- File:Batallon activo de toluca completo final.svg
- File:Batallon activo de toluca completo.svg
- File:Batallon activo de toluca.svg
- File:Escudo nueva espa a grande.png
Out of COM:SCOPE. Personal fantasy creations, not actual seals of the 19th century Empire of Mexico. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This painting author is Kazakhstan painter Omar Babajanov (Омар Бабажанов), this painting belongs to the numerous portraits of Kazakhstan historical figures made by the same author [2], so "own work" declaration made by uploader is false Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - Not own work; artist appears to be living, so not yet PD. -M.nelson (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cfmartinezv (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res web-sized images or DW with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data.
- File:Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú.jpg
- File:Fbvasñdfjgnsñjkhnsjgh.jpg
- File:CONCYTEC.jpg
- File:LAMINA 4.jpg
- File:CESAR FORTUNATO MARTINEZ VITOR.jpg
- File:Centro Cívico de El Tambo.jpg
- File:Pabellón de Administración y Gobierno de la Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dominik wac (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams and computer renderings without clear purpose, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Cylinder Head.jpg
- File:Freeform cast surfaces.jpg
- File:Geometrical surfaces.jpg
- File:Scan Data.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 08:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: small crop from an unknown source, missing essential source info. Uploaded for promotional purposes. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Fotolia stock image, multiple Google Images hits. --Rosenzweig τ 08:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4|2=Commons:Deletion requests/File:Un chavon que usa discord.gif. Doesn't qualify for G4, not the same image. Still out of scope though. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Random doodle with no educational purpose; out of COM:SCOPE -M.nelson (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Low quality. Out of scope. //LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a personal photo, out of scope. -M.nelson (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per COM:SCOPE. Wikimedia Commons is not a personal photo album. T CellsTalk 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete! Per nom. Em-mustapha (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
possible copyvio https://visivaestudio.com.ar/clientes/gsb/noticias/entrega-grua-al-batallon-ingenieros-601/ Pibwl (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN: NOT INSTAGRAM Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (or, unused personal photo - out of COM:SCOPE) -M.nelson (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 11:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of random mosquito, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. Superseded by numerous better alternatives already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Own work no 191.126.177.72 02:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator that it's a doubtful own work claim. If it is the uploader's own work, they should provide permission to COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
© 2022 191.126.177.72 02:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of free license at source; footer of source has copyright logo. -M.nelson (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 12:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I had the rights wrong Thomas Dahlstrøm Nielsen Tdn70 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Cette peinture est sujette à méprise, il y a en effet plusieurs "Salvatore Viale" (dont un poète et un juge). Il s'agit ici du juge. Ce tableau est utilisé pour illustrer les pages sur le poète, beaucoup plus célèbre que le juge. Cosudibastia (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Appearing on the wrong page is not a reason to delete an image. Commons is only interested in whether the image is correctly in the public domain. Also, the judge and the poet appear to be the same person, there is an engraving of him marked "poet" in which is is wearing the neckwear of a judge. --RAN (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion. The file can be renamed if needed, see Commons:File renaming#How to rename a file. -M.nelson (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
No está actualizado Andrés5006 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per {{Db-self}} (uploader request same day as upload). Unused. -M.nelson (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Looks like an official document, might be covered by one of {{PD-Italy-EdictGov}}, {{PD-ItalyGov}}, or {{Italy-CAD-OBD}}. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or even PD-ineligible, but I added PD-ItalyGov, not really eligible for speedy as it did have a license. --RAN (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the certificate of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, and accd. to images found on the web it already looked like this (almost exactly, only one insignificant change) in 1963. So PD-Italy-Gov should be ok. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Possibly an offiicial document, can't quite tell. Source link requires registration. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible for a form filled in with facts, to be eligible for copyright, there must be some creative element, not just filled in facts in a form. --RAN (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: birth certificate, {{PD-text}}. --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an unneeded smaller identical duplicate of File:GCCC new Logo 9.27.16-Email-footer.jpg that was uploaded at the same time by the same user. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, redundant with File:GCCC new Logo 9.27.16-Email-footer.jpg (which is redundant with File:GCCC new Logo 9.27.16.png). -M.nelson (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (then redirected to File:GCCC new Logo 9.27.16.png). --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted image according to en:File:Louisville Metro Flag.png. FDW777 (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems simple enough to be below COM:TOO USA. File:Flag of Louisville.gif is the same flag, tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. -M.nelson (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: colors, simple shapes, letters, two stars and a fleur-de-lis - seems to be below the US threshold of originality to me as well. --Rosenzweig τ 09:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from game screenshots. Should be cropped/blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep clear com:de minimis use of game content. Small blurry screencaps that are incidental to the image are not copyright violations. Dronebogus (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Dronebogus - use of copyrighted elements is de minimis -M.nelson (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: not per nomination. Derivative work and de minimis aside, the Exif data say that the photographer is "TWR" in 2014 and that copyrights are with www.twrichardson.co.uk. That is apparently NOT the uploader, so this is a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mhatrevishal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: File:URAN EDUCATION SOCIETY.jpg taken from FB per EXIF data, File:Khopate.jpg by Author PatternPictures.com. Therefore unreliable uploader.
- File:Mora Sai Mandir.jpg
- File:Khopate.jpg
- File:URAN EDUCATION SOCIETY.jpg
- File:Dronagiri mandir karanja.jpg
- File:Karanja (Uran).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Wrong license. Published in 1939, not CC-BY-SA. — Redboston 01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Russia --RAN (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which is the criterion? — Redboston 09:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. No explanation why this should be PD-Russia as claimed in the discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Album cover, unlikely to be own work Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, just to be specific M.Sayyid creates his own album covers, i'm representing the artist so helping to build the wikipedia page. Target5050 (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - needs evidence of a free license on the artist's website or via COM:VRT. I can't access https://www.msayyid.net/ so unable to verify if the former is true. -M.nelson (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not look like a selfmade photograph, low quality JopkeB (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: why should a self-made photograph not be of "low quality"? The photo is said to be from 1994 (can't be much later because the actor died in 1997), so it's probably a scanned paper print. --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Violation of public work's copyright. This YouTube video indicates that the building began construction sometime in 2017. The only existing Google Street View imagery, from around 2018–19, indicates it was still under construction. This means the mosque is recent enough to be copyrighted.
As COM:FOP Philippines has fell into limbo now in our legislature (with representatives and senators focused on more pressing bills, and some of our senators and congressmen focused on w:en:2022 Philippine general election-related matter), it is, with great regret, that all these three images must be deleted, unless appropriate COM:VRTS correspondence of permission for commercial license from the architect of this mosque is obtained.
- File:Al-Falah Masjid Mosque Parulan, Plaridel 02.jpg
- File:Al-Falah Masjid Mosque Parulan, Plaridel 03.jpg
- File:Al-Falah Masjid Mosque Parulan, Plaridel 04.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Expectedly, as uploader, I just noticed this when I was about to pick oregano herbal leaves nearby; not a big deal though, I see 2 sides of the coin on FOP hereat; Mosques the small one (akin to Chapel for Catholics sub-category of Churches, and Capilla for INC no matter how big they are but in baryos, are not built by architects but artisans or masons and carpenters under a foreman), hence I stay neutral on this; very sincerely FBenjr123 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- @FBenjr123: the builders do not matter here. Rather, the designer who has economic rights to control peoples' images of his works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since you mentioned artisans, then it is a work of art. An artisan is an artist. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2118 with {{PD-old-assumed}} (adjusted for 50 years pma, so 100 years). --Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of literary artwork (texts) with date November 1996. Needs commercial license from the author of the text. The text is a prose that has decent composition worthy of author's economic rights protection.
- File:Battle of Calumpit (Bagbag Railway Bridge ) Centennial Marker 14.jpg
- File:Battle of Calumpit (Bagbag Railway Bridge ) Centennial Marker 15.jpg
- File:Battle of Calumpit (Bagbag Railway Bridge ) Centennial Marker 16.jpg
- File:FvfIbaEsteCalumpit9248 30.JPG
- File:FvfIbaEsteCalumpit9248 31.JPG
_Centennial_Marker_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Centennial_Marker_15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Centennial_Marker_16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- It my personal opinion that the Historical marker is the work of the Calumpit LGU; I protest however, the way it was done, a great disrespect to the Heroes of the Category:Battle of Calumpit ; it was there near a garbage, it was poorly created (this is proof that it was just made by Lapida Makers of gravestones for November 1 commemoration of the death; the marble is even very cheap unlike the rare pink marbles of San Ildefonso, San Miguel and Norzagaray); I think that there is no worthy author since the words ]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Calumpit_(Bagbag_Railway_Bridge_)_Centennial_Marker_15.jpg Kapitan ni Birheng Presentasyon] refers to the Presentation of the Virgin Mary at Meyto Shrine and the sequestered statue of Presentation at Pandukot; there was not even a Solemn Dedication; all these point to the fact that mere artisans made this, very sincerely FBenjr123 (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- @Benjr123: for it to be 100% {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} it must be proven by you as per COM:EVIDENCE. We cannot be sure if the writer was a regular employee of the local government of Barangay Iba Este or municipal government of the Municipality of Calumpit or not. There were/are cases in which several of the employees were/are contractual, or the writer is from a third party. Possible COM:VRTS email correspondence from the writer who composed the literary artwork may be required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
_Centennial_Marker_15.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2097 with {{PD-old-assumed}} (adjusted for 50 years pma, so 100 years). --Rosenzweig τ 19:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jjanhone as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This file is a copyright violation because this media is a logo or a derivative work thereof, which are always presumed to be copyrighted unless they are too simple to be copyrightable. Unless licensed under a free license, copyrighted logos are not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Recreating a logo yourself does not give you the right to license it under a free license, and fair use claims are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons.
COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Between the shape/dots on the left and the complex font, this seems to exceed COM:TOO Finland. -M.nelson (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also listing: File:LaMelo Ball 2021 Unenhanced.jpg
Its not really melo, its from NBA2k Mausebru (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know whether it's a video game screenshot, but it does look like a screenshot and it's definitely a crop of something. @TheNBAMVP: Could you point us to the original of this image? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- i enhanced it TheNBAMVP (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNBAMVP Enhanced another photograph? Could you link to the original, uncropped pic? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- i got it TheNBAMVP (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- File:LaMelo Ball 2021 Unenhanced.jpg TheNBAMVP (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNBAMVP I was asking for the original uncropped video - the file you're showing has been cropped tightly to show LaMelo's face and not a high-res original. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- how do i send videos? TheNBAMVP (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a video of a TV screen? Because that's what it looks like. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- no TheNBAMVP (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- here’s the link to the enhanced page. when i enhanced it it looks like a 2k photo TheNBAMVP (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.cutout.pro/photo-enhancer-sharpener-upscaler TheNBAMVP (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNBAMVP Doesn't really matter what software you used. What matters is the source material. You're welcome to upload it and prove me wrong, but it does seem like you cropped and enhanced a screenshot of a copyrighted video. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a video of a TV screen? Because that's what it looks like. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- how do i send videos? TheNBAMVP (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNBAMVP I was asking for the original uncropped video - the file you're showing has been cropped tightly to show LaMelo's face and not a high-res original. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNBAMVP Enhanced another photograph? Could you link to the original, uncropped pic? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is clearly a still shot of a tv broadcast that has been enhanced with some software, or lifted from some computer game. As a result it's a clear copyright violation of the original source and should be speedy deleted. Canterbury Tail (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- ok then, delete it TheNBAMVP (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- i dare you TheNBAMVP (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- i enhanced it TheNBAMVP (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yeungchunming1992 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files were previously deleted as copyvios. See deletion log and uploader's talk page User_talk:Yeungchunming1992.
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 1997.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 2001.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 1995.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 1994.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 1993.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School 1970s.jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學307號課室.jpg
- File:翻新後的6樓禮堂.jpg
- File:昔日學校大門.jpg
- File:Father Stephen B. Edmonds.jpg
- File:地下大堂現貌.jpg
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School.jpg
Wcam (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yeungchunming1992 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same as the reason of previous deletion request. Copyvio.
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學翻新後的6樓禮堂.jpg
- File:正在擴建校舍新翼中的柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1997年).jpg
- File:翻新後的柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (2001年).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1999年).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1994年).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1995年).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1970年代).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍 (1993年).jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學307號課室.jpg
- File:文顯榮神父.jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學昔日學校大門.jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學昔日地下大堂.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
SCP-2000 04:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- These pictures some of my own work, some of the school work, and I got their permission. Yeungchunming1992 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yeungchunming1992: Please see COM:OTRS on how to send us that permission Gbawden (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: Commons:Deletion_requests/files_of_Yeungchunming1992. Yes, we do received a ticket: #2022020710010154, but it is hard to process it...
- For File:文顯榮神父.jpg, it is pretty clear we could delete it as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should not be applied to newly uploaded file.
- Per EXIF data, two files are created by "Canon DIGITAL IXUS 120 IS":
- One file is created by "Nikon Coolpix 990":
- Two are created by phone "MOTO RAZR V9":
- The rest of them are created by "HP Scanjet djf300", likely scanned version of some old photo.
- I just replied with some boilerplate, hope uploader could provide more information. Stang★ 10:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP. If something still comes out of that ticket please consult COM:UNDEL. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
FB image. See Metadata. No permission. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Facebook image" is not a Commons policy for deletion unless it is a blatant copyright violation.. Please provide a policy-based rationale or consider requesting permissions or discussing with uploader. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There’s a license statement for this file that reads: This is a photo of a natural site in Nepal identified by the ID Photography © 2020 by Richa KhatriPhotography © 2020 by Richa Khatri is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Commons does not allow non-commercial or non-derivative images. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Question @RichaK0: Did you intend to license this photo Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC-ND), or CC-BY-SA, or both? -M.nelson (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- Weak delete While multi-licensing is OK, due to the high level of detail in the Non-Commercial tag, I suspect the uploader really intended to protect their copyright and license the file Non-Commercially (which is not allowed on Commons), and made a mistake when choosing cc-by-sa-4.0 (possibly a default in the upload tool). The photo, though nice, is small resolution and unused. -M.nelson (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Possibly above COM:TOO France --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I believe this does exceed COM:TOO France. The design of ping pong paddles turning into the Eiffel Tower contains artistic intent IMO. -M.nelson (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 20:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a press photo, his socials have a few of the same event from the same angle (https://www.instagram.com/p/CLmTevXhk58/). Lord Belbury (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This image does have full Exif data which includes Author and a number for copyright holder. This may be from the copyright holder, but ideally they'd work with VTRS to verify this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Exif credits MK Photography; would need their permission via COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Photo described as "in reality show", and from an angle unlikely to have been taken by a member of the public. User has uploaded images taken without credit or permission from social media in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Image can be found on her Instagram account [3] and on her Facebook page - [4]. From the text on the instagram post, this looks like a promotional image for a competition television show where she was a mentor. Ravensfire (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not own work; COM:NETCOPYVIO. -M.nelson (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- also nominated (by nominator): File:Héctor Juezas.jpg
motivo; G11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhorari (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- How can it be a copyvio when you uploaded it under a free license nearly 5 years ago? --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Elhorari as uploader and OP. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. Considering one of these photos is tiny and this user has apparently uploaded other copyvios, those might actually be copyvios. --Rosenzweig τ 20:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
As a photo of a work of art, we need a licence for the mural as it isn't covered by freedom of panorama Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a mural it's paste up Graffiti, as Graffiti Copyright rules don't apply since it isn't protected by laws. Graffiti is allowed here Oxyman (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This looks very much like a poster pasted to that wall. Since when is that "graffiti"?. --Rosenzweig τ 20:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Seems to be some sort of certificate of notorization from 1944, with the notary being "Vladimiro Capasso". Probably not PD in the US. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible its just a text based form with no creative input. --RAN (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Originally KOGL type-4. NC-ND restriction. ChongDae (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 21:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Originally KOGL type-4. NC-ND restriction. ChongDae (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 21:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Fr prof busse
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Ndumrukcic as Speedy (Db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7. Does not qualify for G7 as it was uploaded more than 7 days ago. File is currently in use at Wikidata and was in use at enwiki until the uploader removed it.
.jpg){kind=link}
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree with removing "Fr prof busse 001 (cropped).jpg". It was removed in the enwiki with the argument COI without comment on the talk page. The Template:COI states marked ".. if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." I don't see why a photo could be non-neutral in this case. Wouter (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: On the assumption that the uploader is the copyright owner as declared (and a tineye search found no results), no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 21:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by %USER% as Speedy AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Fr prof busse. —howcheng {chat} 21:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 92.242.59.6 as Fair use (non-free)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. If said photographer Eugene Hutchinson indeed died in 1950, the image might be in the PD. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)\
- w:Eugene Raymond Hutchinson died in 1957, however it's not relevant because the photo was published in 1938 so it was protected for 28 years from publication and its copyright registration had to be renewed in 1966 for another 28 year term ending in 1994. At that time protection term has been automatically extended to 75 years and finally 95 years. That's assuming the photo was published with a proper copyright notice in the first place and registered with the LOC.
- I looked in the relevant Catalog of Copyright Entries [5] for Class J (Photographs) and there were only several hundreds of new or renewal registrations each year, none of them from Eugene Hutchinson or the National Portrait Gallery. Seems like the vast majority of photographers didn't even bother to register their works. --92.242.59.6 15:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your research work. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've also searched the Google-scanned collection of the Catalog of Copyright Entries volumes from 1923 up to 1978[6] , as suggested on Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain, and there are no records at all for Eugene Hutchinson, the National Portrait Gallery, or the Smithsonian Institution.
- I conclude that this particular photo - and likely anything attributed to these entities if published in the US before 1964 - has lapsed into the public domain. --92.242.59.6 17:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your research work. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; thank you for your research. —howcheng {chat} 21:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This template is unnecessary. The United Kingdom has enough of Wikimedia Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama. Two-dimensional graphic works photographed from a public space in the United Kingdom will be kept if they are incidentally included in the main object or will be deleted if they are main objects. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
And also:
Ox1997cow (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I ping @JWilz12345: . Ox1997cow (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There is adequate FOP in the UK. For problematic ones, simple solution is search and delete — the golden rule. This is why we have Category:United Kingdom FOP cases and its subcategories, for tracking of deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support I Agree your opinion. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow/@JWilz12345: Couldn't this template be used to tag de minimis (etc) cases? -M.nelson (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @M.nelson: {{De minimis}} will serve that purpose. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. I agree then that this template can be deleted - files which break FoP UK should be nominated for deletion rather than tagged with this template. -M.nelson (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. I agree then that this template can be
- @M.nelson: {{De minimis}} will serve that purpose. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Since there are no protests five months later, this template is apparently not needed. --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nazihfares (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Pibwl (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- There was a widespread and purposeful attempt done by some people to change his father's name in Wikipedia, for communal and political purpose. This document is a solid proof for confirmation of his full name . 51.36.79.108 09:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Uploader states In Category:PD Russia license tags there are two templates available for this picture Template:PD-Soviet, Template:PD-Soviet Russia-corporate authorship. {{PD-Soviet}} is not a valid license. Not sure if it meets the criteria for {{PD-Russia-1996}} . AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per the precautionary principle, as I'm not given enough information to be able to determine the copyright status of this image. The file can be restored in in 2076 (120 years after the death of the subject, as I don't know if the "1940" date is correct) with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 10:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Megamart Santa Maria
[edit]This is a recent building; the architect is most likely still living. There is also no FOP in the Philippines as of this moment, and it seems the Intellectual Property Law revisions are not of urgent priority in our Congress as of today. Thus default status prevails: needs COM:VRTS commercial license from the architect.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe, tt would be wise to page for technical opinion of @Secaundis: an adoptive son of Santa Maria who lives nearby and I assume works with the LGU may inform Commons on whether this building is Pre-fabricated or whether an architect has intervened ... (as a Mechanical Engineer, though, I had many experiences on home and commercial buildings; it is rather a question of fact than my opinion or surmise vis-a-vis an intelligent guess or generalization that all buidings are assumed to be built with architect's plans; ergo, since I am not in a position to say with definiteness whether or not an architect has been hired for Megamart, I submit that I stay neutral, very sincerely FBenjr123 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. Per COM:FOP Philippines buildings from before 1972 can be photographed. Regrettably the building date of this building is not mentioned on the file page. --Ellywa (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Unclear if/when these photos were first published. Anonymous works in this time period are protected for 120 years from creation, 95 years from publication if published with copyright notice and renewal, or are not protected if published without copyright notice or not renewed.
- File:Carved limestone Missouri State Bear with sculptor Bernard 'Poco' Frazier.tif
- File:"Communication Trio".jpg
- File:"Untamed" (ceramic sculpture) created 1948 by Bernard Emerson Frazier 1906-1976.jpg
- File:Bernard Frazier circa 1935.tif
_created_1948_by_Bernard_Emerson_Frazier_1906-1976.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The family member who inherited the copyrights has changed the license to reflect that he is the heir to the images and the copyrights. He has submitted an OTRS. --RAN (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: most with {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, except for the photo of the bear sculpture because a very similar photo which was published in The Daily Oklahoman, 22 March 1953, suggests that it is not a family photo, but a work of Gerald Massie, Missouri’s first official state photographer. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No VRT permission is listed on the file pages. Can be undeleted if permission is received and processed. --Ellywa (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no proper source for this image, just a Pinterest image URL.
That way we can't even be sure that the year "1935" as given is correct, and the claim that the "author is unknown" is also quite dubious - that some Pinterest page does not name an author does not automatically mean that this is an "anonymous" image in a legal sense.
As Georges Lemaître lived from 1894 to 1966, there's a good chance that the actual photographer of this image lived beyond 1951 and that the image is therefore still protected by copyright per the usual 70 years pma formula. The file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also including the newly uploaded derivate version File:Georges Lemaître (Remini enhanced).jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep The precautionary principle actually says the opposite: "[if there is] significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You need more than a hunch, like finding another copy of the image with the name of the author in a reverse Google image search. Almost 90% of the pre 1950 images in Commons have no known author. Any of the >10,000 images using one of the anonymous license templates from the same time span could be deleted on the same "hunch". The EU allows a clawback from the public domain if the author becomes known. --RAN (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- What you wrote is totally perverting the precautionary principle. Basically you are saying that everything is fine unless proven to be definitely wrong, which is not how it should be. Here, someone found an image somewhere on the internet, doesn't even give us a proper source with information etc. (just the bare image URL), so we don't have any way of checking if the claims that the uploader made (like that the author is unknown, that the image is from the 1930s, even that the image is really showing Georges Lemaître) actually come from that source or are, on the contrary, things that the uploader just made up. Also you seem to be confused about what an "anonymous" image actually is. It's not already anonymous because some internet source where the uploader found it does not mention the author. It's anonymous only if the author was not mentioned at the time of original publication and also never disclosed their identity / claimed authorship at a later time. And that is not easy to prove. It's definitely not proven in this case. --Rosenzweig τ 09:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This image is a crop of this photograph that is now in the public domain, and even beyond since it was sent aboard the ISS in 2014 (see this). --Madelgarius (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Madelgarius: It's interesting that this image was brought to the ISS. But where does it say that it is in the public domain (and is there a reason stated why it would be in the PD?) I couldn't find anything about the PD status of the image in the ESA article you linked above. Do you have other sources where it actually says that the image is in the PD (and why)? --Rosenzweig τ 22:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This image is all over the Internet, but usually without any meaningful details. The best I could find so far is this, which has another version with the hand-written caption G Lemaître Mars 1934 (his own signature apparently, see File:Georges Lemaitre signature.jpg), so March 1934. That's the most specific date for the photo I found so far. It's probably this one from the Louvain/Leuven university archive. --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Rosenzweig: , See this but I sent them an email about the copyright status of this photography. I 'll place their answer here. Best regards, –Madelgarius (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. As the photographer is unknown it is not clear if the image is in public domain. It is also not known if and when the image was first published. Therefore the photo must be deleted. Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template the photo can be undeleted safely 120 years after the image was made, which will be not later than 1934+121=2055.. Note: there are more images in the Category Georges Lemaitre which can be used for replacement. --Ellywa (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Did you read that (those little pretty links in blue are hyperlinks, did you notice ?) the ESA pictures are now under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license and the picture itself is tagged (c) ESA ? Moreover, ESA does not mention the name of the author of this photograph however, it is undoubtedly that the space agency carried out research to find the author before sending this photograph in space to place it in the ISS. No mention of its author, one should have validly assumed that he is unknown. ESA tagged this photograph as its property, ESA's policy is to publish under free license. Conclusion: this decision in suppression does not take into account the opinions expressed and should logically be cancelled and the photograph restored. --Madelgarius (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Madelgarius: Please be civil and do not sarcastic. Thanks for checking my work, this is always appreciated and I will explain somewhat more. The last thing your wrote on this DR a month ago is "I sent them an email about the copyright status of this photography. I 'll place their answer here." Nothing came after that. Based on all arguments listed I decided to delete the image, because there are severe doubts on the copyright status and ESA just might want to honor this person. If you do not agree with my decision, please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. Then another admin can decide on the matter. This procedure is listed on the top of this DR. Regards Ellywa (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: I didn't expect you to change your mind. No, I won't ask for a review of your decision. I just think that with two opinions in conservation and the arguments put forward, there were better things to do (nothing in this case). Too bad then. But if you feel you did the project a favor, that's the main thing, right? --Madelgarius (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)