Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/04/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
it contains my own picture and i don’t want someone to see my with my nickname Medozoro90 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
contain sensitive informations Medozoro90 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: authors request unused. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
{{copyvio|1=From stock photographs. No permission non free image}} OtuNwachinemere (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-61067247. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like non-free material. 61.120.241.1 06:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam. --Achim55 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted, prompt uploader request. Please be more careful with your uploads, thank you. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Copied from of the Web, it is improbable that the photographer died before 1952, COM:PCP. Ras67 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work, copied from of the Web, we need the photographer's permission, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyright violation, false license claim. The sculpture may be PD-Old, but this photo is not, uploader has no authority to license stolen photo. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photoshopped image, COM:WEBHOST, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; private joke or insult image. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; user talk page. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Collage of unsourced photos of different places and situations. I doubt uploader is the actual original photographer and copyright holder of all. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Middle right photo seen at [1] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Reverse image search confirms multiple coyright violations. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Osps7 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: unlicensed logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - copyvio. --Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
нмьпьтс153 188.16.21.14 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Test or nonsense request. --Achim55 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded with the wrong user Fumanchu1487 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Je me suis trompée de fichier upload Marionrigal (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & screenshot. --Achim55 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Image collections of no wider educational value Radmir Far (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy -- silly group and captions. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
no source no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:01, 15 April 2022 UTC: as per COM:SPEEDY. --Krdbot 01:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
no source no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:01, 15 April 2022 UTC: as per COM:SPEEDY. --Krdbot 01:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:DG, the content of this file cannot be determined at this moment. There are the visible elements: an F-14 fighter, burning oil patches; and we may assume that a picture of a US Navy warplanes in flight and in action is PD-USN. But the title and description say that this plane belonged to the VF-114, and a simple visual inspection of the Tomcat tells us that there is a logo of the VF-84 painted below the tail. Hence, the remainder of the description cannot be trusted: neither the date of shot, neither the camera operator, and surely not the remainder of the textual description. Wrongly described files seriously lack in educational usefulness (another deletion rationale). Additionally, some categories will need to get removed.
Of course, a simple file move would have been enough to correct the title. But as there are the other issues cited above, I preferred a deletion request; the outcome may either be the fixing of the erroneous information and a file move or an actual deletion. Sadly, I am not knowledgeable enough about US Navy information resources, so I cannot fix this all by myself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep Well, I added the NARA-link (where the Defenseimagery.mil images were moved to). The offical description is: A Fighter Squadron 114 (VF-114) F-14A Tomcat aircraft flies over an oil well set ablaze by Iraqi troops during Operation Desert Storm. I don't know what a "simple visual inspection" should prove otherwise: The plane is definitely a F-14 from VF-114, as the "Aardvark"-logo of VF-114 is clearly visible. VF-84 hat the skull and bones-logo, which VF-103 took over after VF-84 was disestablished in 1995. VF-114 was assigned to Carrier Air Wing 11 (CVW-11, tail code "NH") aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for a deployment to the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf from 28 May to 25 November 1991, consistent with the date given "10 September 1991". VF-84, however, was at that time assigned to CVW-8 (tail code "AJ") aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), making a deployment to the Persian Gulf from 28 December 1990 to 28 June 1991. Assuming that the date is correct, VF-84 was nowhere near Kuwait at that time. In fact, VF-84 was never, ever assigned to CVW-11, CVW-11 being a Pacific Fleet wing, and VF-84 was an Atlantic Fleet squadron. The only thing I admit is, that the bad quality of the photo could lead to the impression that "VF-114" appears to look like "VF-84". It would have been nicer to ask before, instead of making an unfounded deletion request especially, as the user says "Sadly, I am not knowledgeable enough about US Navy information resources". I am. Cheers. Cobatfor (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Closure, made as nominator. It never occured to me that a grainy or noisy picture portion could make a VF-114 look like a VF-84, so I was inclined to assume some human error in a USN archive, mislabelling the photograph (wouldn't have been the first time that errors occurred). Cobatfor, I didn't mean to be disrespectful towards your work; my thinking was that a DR should have been the simplest way to redactionally deal with some issue I saw. Well, this proved to be nil, thanks to the information you provided. So, it's an easy step to finish the DR procedure here and now. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
personal photos by non-contributors minhhuy (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
personal photos by non-contributors minhhuy (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: promotion --ghouston (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G10.-BRP ever 01:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: promotion --ghouston (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G10.-BRP ever 01:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Commons is not web host for this type of photo. Out of project scope.
- File:Tanjam.jpg
- File:Kazi Elad.jpg
- File:Ahmed Olid.jpg
- File:Mahin31.png
- File:MemberPhoto.jpg
- File:Dblockbangali.jpg
আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Commons is not private photo storage place. GentBeaus69 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
adding
--Achim55 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Huseyinadiguzel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:2017 Adalet Mitingi AFP Haber Ajansı Röportaj.jpg
- File:CHP Adalet Mitingi.jpg
- File:Hüseyin adıgüzel.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
No Fop in France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The sculptor is still alive. Tangopaso (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. Yes, the sculptor is still alive and he gave me permission to publish this picture license free. What would be needed to prove that? Is an email from the sculptor granting the license enough? Thank you. Rosadosventos360 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I already asked Pedro Cabrita Reis, the sculptor, to send the authorization by email to the Volunteer Response Team as instructed on the VRT page. Thank you. Rosadosventos360 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The email of the sculptor Pedro Cabrita Reis releasing the rights to the file has just been sent to the VR Team. And I kindly ask you for a little help :). The status of the file should be changed to Permission Pending, but I'm not sure in which space to write the respective code... should I replace the nomination for deletion with the Permission Pending code? Thank you again. Rosadosventos360 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022041410005492 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Três Graças Pedro Cabrita Reis.jpg” under ticket:2022041410005492. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Rosadosventos360 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: permission received and verified. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted book covers
Gikü (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ts Tousifsultann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal selfie likely used for self promotion (see enwiki contribs).
- File:Tousif sultann gym.jpg
- File:Tousif sultann adds.jpg
- File:Tousif sultann fitness.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan fam.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan mass look.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan actor.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan insta.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan.jpg
- File:Tousif sultann.jpg
- File:Tousif sultan actor and model.jpg
Stang★ 22:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
images from internet.
- File:曹叡.jpg
- File:Yelü Dashi.jpg
- File:盤庚.jpg
- File:Wanyan Xun.jpg
- File:Wanyan Yongji.jpg
- File:Wanyan Jing.jpg
- File:Wanyan Yong.jpg
- File:Wanyan Dan.jpg
- File:Yelü Yanxi.jpg
- File:Yelü Hongji.jpg
- File:Yelü Zongzhen.jpg
- File:Yelü Longxu.jpg
- File:秦二世.jpg
- File:Yelü Xian.jpg
- File:Yelü Deguang.jpg
- File:Yelü Ruan.jpg
- File:Abaoji.jpg
- File:漢順帝.jpg
- File:刘盈.jpg
- File:秦非子.jpg
- File:劉祜.jpg
- File:刘肇.jpg
- File:漢平帝.jpg
- File:漢元帝.jpg
RZuo (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING, printing on packaging is copyrighted, so photos of packaging cannot be upload to Commons.
- File:2020-07-22 10 36 32 A bag of Lay's Barbecue Flavored Potato Chips in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia.jpg
- File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 深圳會展中心 SZCEC Convention & Exhibition Center July 2019 SSG 90.jpg
Yeeno (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio?! 1980s... 191.125.40.248 01:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete Dubious date, small web-resolution image -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Roblox Avatar is copyrighted KMBDENNISTRIDENT (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete, videogame screenshot. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted videogame Roblox. KMBDENNISTRIDENT (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Author MAXIMECASA Copyright holder MAXIMECASA". MKFI (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Author GRANT ELLIS Copyright holder GRANT ELLIS". VRT permission from Grant Ellis needed. MKFI (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe this image is out COM:Scope. MKFI (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Sourced to 3rd party website; claimed license not seen at source. Not used. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission at source. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE photo of a non-notable person (ro:Bianca Tirsin). Also found here: [2] Gikü (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
OOS. Likely a selfie. I don't see any educational value in this image. Hulged (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Per EXIF is copyright holder expa.at 2003:DE:708:5A2D:B01D:60BF:52DA:E58B 10:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Per EXIF is copyright holder expa.at 2003:DE:708:5A2D:B01D:60BF:52DA:E58B 10:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Per EXIF is copyright holder expa.at 2003:DE:708:5A2D:B01D:60BF:52DA:E58B 10:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristi Lia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE pictures of a non-notable individual (ro:Cristi Lia)
- File:Cristi Lia la filmări cu Violeta Lumina Vestului.jpg
- File:Cristi Lia la filmări.jpg
- File:Cristi Lia la un eveniment.jpg
Gikü (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Metadata says copyright owner is www.tombarnesphoto.com, I suspect the uploader is not the same and does not have permission to release this as PD MIDI (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- As the original uploader narek818 is not on WP anymore, we should delete it. Atomic903 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Per EXIF is copyright holder expa.at 2003:DE:708:5A2D:B01D:60BF:52DA:E58B 10:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE Gikü (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Historical drawing. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- An image from 1897 is in the public domain in the USA. --RAN (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per RAN, date of creation also puts it in public domain per PD-old-assumed elsewhere. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The uploader, Starsareintherose, blanked the description and then asked for the file to be renamed to "File:Please delete it thanks, for this img.jpg". That suggests that they want the file to be deleted. Starsareintherose has too many global contributions for CSD F10 to apply, and the upload was too long ago for G7, but I think deletion as being out of scope would be reasonable. bjh21 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right, I want to delete it, because it contains my face information, now I changed a lot and don't want to remain it. And it's useless for wikimedia comons. Starsareintherose (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
LEGO toy of character Super Mario, which is not a utilitarian object. Stang★ 22:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE image of a non-notable individual; promo attempt at ro:AlexsisFaye Gikü (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. User photo of a user without valid contributions: m:Special:CentralAuth/Ruben Petrosyan Gikü (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted album cover and software interface; does not seem to have particular educational value either anyway. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AdrianDum90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own work claim doesn't check out on these satellite images.
- File:VO Piatra-Neamț EST+NORD 1.png
- File:VO Piatra-Neamț EST+NORD.png
- File:Tronson VO NORD.png
- File:Tronson 1 VO P.N. EST.png
- File:Tronson 2 VO P.N. EST.png
- File:Tronson 3 VO P.N. EST.png
Gikü (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Multi Plus Developers (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work, if you look carefully you will see a watermark. All need OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, no quality Xocolatl (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright notification in the file Xocolatl (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"Own work" doubtful, and also "Old aerial/satellite photograph of 1937" doubtful. This is more likely a greyscale modern image with digitally added labels. Enyavar (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
see EXIF, AFP PHOTO / STR shizhao (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
No reasonable use at all. Just a plain blank image. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Extracted from this non-free video, thus non-free image. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Extracted from this non-free video, thus non-free image. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation.seems not own work HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, pure vandalism. Gikü (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be scan of historic photo. Unlikely to actually be own work. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Xocolatl (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Romeo Tudorache (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE - advertisement (ro:Egregora)
Gikü (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotional material, out of COM:SCOPE (see ro:Site-uri de recenzii) Gikü (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE pic of a non-notable individual (ro:Utilizator:Casian Flavius Domnariu) Gikü (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE logo of a non-notable company; promo attempt at ro: KARPATHIAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY S.A. Gikü (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE image of a non-notable individual; [self-]promo attempt at ro:Darius Beldean Gikü (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Unknown location ; No notability ; No use ; Blurred photo Tangopaso (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The following is an image of a postage stamp released in 2022. As a result, the following has a Crown copyright (per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada) 99.228.70.190 21:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like stamps violate Crown copyright. My mistake. HadynMD (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio— no fop benin Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE – non-notable individual (ro:Andrei Decu) Gikü (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Same applies to all of this user's uploads. Gikü (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo, see for discussion. Possibly Conflict of Interest. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Cover artwork of an album by a non-notable artist claimed to be the uploader; not necessarily own work and no educational value either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Nah omy (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Basit Abdullah (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Facebook: Soy el creador de esta página de Wikipedia y de manera que sea más transparente para todos publico mi foto y asi se den cuenta 191.125.40.248 01:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Famoso rapero 191.125.40.248 02:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No licence (promotional photo, colored but still) --Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Permission as written in the description is insufficient, needs COM:VRT. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Image is not own work, and is not public domain in Russia, per COM:RUSSIA. Yeeno (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Babumjacob (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think all of these are likely to have come from Indian government pages, so the licensing is flat wrong. See [3] for Arundathi, [4] for Chacko. There's nothing on those pages about the true source, so regretfully Delete. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omarmazlah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Test images. Not in use.
Smooth O (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:0Px0P
[edit]- File:New flag.png
- File:Sheild2.png
- File:Coat of arms of botcos.png
- File:Botcosn anvy.png
- File:Flag of botcos2.png
- File:Botocos.png
- File:Flag of botcos.png
- File:Botocos coat of arms.png
- File:World map of botocos.png
- File:Map of botocos.png
Wank maps/flags/coats of arms of some fictional country uniting the whole Caucasus: Out of scope. Next, I found the following detail: In the most recent file, author tagged towards Atomwaffen Division... nuff said. --Enyavar (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Edit, new uploads:
Same reasoning. --Enyavar (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
File page wihout file. Leonel Sohns 14:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE photo of a non-notable individual; [self-]promo attempt at ro:Utilizator:Newsrotoday Gikü (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Map title and content make no sense: Is this a linguistic map? Economic? Advertisement?
Also, unused. Enyavar (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: no context. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also note w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deshaj Times. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos and map of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
- File:Charlton Location Map.png
- File:Charlton-logo-web-sm.png
- File:Charlton Wiki Logo.png
- File:Wiki Logo1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Radmir Far (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Fictional map for a sandbox-project. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Fictional map for the future. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Fictional map for the future. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Eu fiz o carregamento por engano Djadjeee (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; clearly a screenshot. --Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
clearly flickwashed the account has only three images, all of which were also uploaded here by the creator and none have proper metadata/exif data
Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no proof this photo is in the public domain. The curent licensing is for photos published before 1927, which is physically impossible for this photo which dates to around World War II. The web source for this photo is a municiapl memorial page which says nothing about the rights of this photo. Indy beetle (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep The nominator's statement is plainly erroneous—the current licensing is valid for all photos in the public domain within the United States. As the template notes, this includes photos published before 1927, or if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. The photo was one that was in the personal collection of the Trause family and had been since the time of the war. Simply put, the photograph was taken and first published between 1943 and 1945, and the photograph was published with a copyright notice. Photographs published around that time also require renewal for their copyright to remain valid in the United States, which never happened for this photo. If you would prefer to tag the photograph with {{PD-US-not renewed}} then feel free, but I really don't see a valid reason for the nomination here. Mhawk10 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that this photo was "first published between 1943 and 1945, and the photograph was published with a copyright notice"? Created is not the same as published. That newspaper article is from 2018. Unless you can find an old newspaper article with this portrait, chances are it was not published until recent (since it was in a private family collection) and thus the copyright period would begin in 2018. I doubt the town website page is older than 20 years, so if that was first instance it would still be in copyright. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Create is not the same as published, but the U.S. Copyright Office is very clear that the sale of copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication, as does giving away a copy of the photograph without further restriction. Specifically, publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work (emphasis added). In other words, unless the copyright holder prohibited Trause from taking a copy of that photograph and showing it to random people, the photo was published. As there were no such restrictions imposed on the ability to disclose the content of the photo when it was printed in the 1940s, the work was published at that time under U.S. law. Mhawk10 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The 1927 license was incorrect, and "PD-US-not renewed" is correct, which reads: "there may or may not have been a copyright notice". Read Commons:Publication for the definition of "published" which is made available to the public. It doesn't just mean appearing in newspaper or magazine, it also means a copy sent from the photographer to the client. --RAN (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It is PD-US-not renewed. Desertarun1 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as it is right now a PD not renewed.--Sanandros (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
no source given Hoyanova (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoyanova There is no source here, these are people from the urban-type settlement "Gelon", the photo was taken by me personally from the archives of our photographs, like the 2 man in the pictures in the article about the Village of Gelon Ukraina12 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like authors own work. --Sanandros (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Previous DR closed wrong. It is clearly a photo of an existing photo, per comments of uploader above ("photo was taken by me personally from the archives of our photographs"). Needs original author, source, date, and permission. Also included the uncropped version:
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question is whether it predates 1972 to be PD in Uzbekistan. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the required essential info is added, then that would be answered by itself.
- BTW, I see you frequently changing essential info and licenses without any basis for doing so, just based on assumptions or your personal opinion. That is plain wrong and must stop. If you think a license is incorrect, you can discuss it at the DR but don't change licenses in the middle of a DR. That is deceptive and manipulative for the DR discussion! --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Either keep, or explain why an image of this age isn't PD, or some plausible claim that this isn't an old image, as claimed. But it's ludicrous to base this on the licensing of a 2022 scan / mechanical reproduction of an old photo, and even worse to claim that this photo just happens to have been photographed originally in the last few months. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ukraina12: Can you help us out here and expand anything on the description of the original photo? Date, location, photographer? Anything would be helpful, thanks. If this is your original photo (not the digital scan of the film) would you consider also licensing it as something like {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}? That might just be simpler. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that this image is "circa 1960" was added User:RAN, an unrelated editor who knows nothing more about this image than you or me. IMO, it is equal to vandalism to just put an arbitrary date out of thin air! Yes, I know that the 2022 is clearly wrong, that is why this DR was started in the first place. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You know that "2022 is clearly wrong" and yet you're edit-warring over two different editors to keep re-adding such a falsehood. This isn't about accuracy, it's just about your ego. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- My ego??? Where did that come from??? No need to make it personal. And replacing one wrong date with another wrong date is not helpful, and actually misleading, because other participants in this DR may not check the file history and then just assume that PD-Uzbekistan is right. That is why the original info should remain until the original uploader can provide the facts. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be an analog photograph. So pre-1972 is quite probable. Of course, more information would be better. Yann (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is unbecoming of an admin to make such an assumption out of thin air! Without the essential info, there is just no way to know if PD-Uzbekistan is even correct. Was it even taken in Uzbekistan? Was the photographer really anonymous? Is it actually old or just faded? One fact is clear: the uploader took it from an archive. So (s)he should go back and get those essential facts. That is a Commons policy requirement. I am more than willing to keep this image if someone can provide that. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Get off from your high horse, and find a way to keep this, instead of finding a pretext to delete it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why the personal stuff? Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep --Ooligan (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest getting information from the uploader about the original picture, because the copyright of that picture is in question, not the license of the scan. However, the user is globally locked for spam. Yes, there is no source beyond the uploader that this is Uzbekistan but I don't have a good reason to doubt it. If it were in the public domain in the US and the source country then Template:cc-by-sa-4.0 is fine. But as it is ww have only a claim about the scan, no information on the original picture and no basis for speculating it's old (although it might be), so delete per COM:PRP. Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Look, we do not know anything about the photo. How can you be sure, that the photo is made before 1972? We have no author, no publication data, no anything. Uploader is globally locked as spam-only account. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio... 191.125.40.248 01:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio! Cual de todos? 191.125.40.248 01:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? La copia del disco? 191.125.40.248 01:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd would also delete it and say it is from a record. We need to know more if we want to keep it.--Sanandros (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in 2011, far too long ago for deletion without reason; in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
poor source, no license, no blue tag, no photographer mentioned Victuallers (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 191.125.40.248 01:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, found online. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 191.125.40.248 01:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination,visual characteristics suggest screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No es usuario. Ver: https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Mauricio+Andres+Araya+Reyes 191.125.40.248 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Personal photo only used on userpage of user without meaningful edits. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Copied from of the Web, it is improbable that the photographer died before 1952, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism. This is not an official global logo for the date, is an image from a local organism promoting the date. The user has constantly tried to put this as an image for the related articles. MexTDT (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Not own work Fish bowl (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete A bizarre image...looks like out of some flash game, so not own work. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
no permission protected logo Hoyanova (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
no source given no metadata present Hoyanova (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: lack of metadata is not a valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in 2011, far too long ago for deletion without reason; in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of permission at source. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:IronGargoyle. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in 2011, far too long ago for deletion without reason; in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Infrogmation. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't shoot that photo?--Sanandros (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: historical photo missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't shoot that photo?--Sanandros (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused low-res poor quality image, possibly not even own work. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Author or uploader request deletion Alcantara0827 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of low-res poor quality image, better alternatives available. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Soviet era maps
[edit]- File:SK 00.010.000 (2) Bratislava 1981.jpg
- File:SK 00.010.000 (1) Bratislava 1981.jpg
- File:M-33-143 Братислава (Bratislava) 10k 1981.jpg
- File:N-34-50,62 Гданьск(Gdańsk) 10K 1978.jpg
- File:N-34-49,50 Гдыня (GDYNIA) 10K 1973.jpg
- File:M-33-34,35 Вроцлав(Wrocław) 25K 1980.jpg
- File:M-34-39 Ченстохова(Częstochowa) 10K 1973.jpg
- File:M-33-44 Еленя-Гура(Jelenia Góra) 10K 1988.jpg
- File:N-33-130,131,142,143 Познань(Poznań) 10K 1980.jpg
- File:N-34-126,127,138,139 Варшава(Warszawa) 25K 1980.jpg
Scans of Soviet era maps of various cities in Slovakia and Poland uploaded by Twistinez-Taiwaner. No rationale as to why the maps would be copyright-free. --Botev (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, These pictures are stitched together with image downloaded from the Internet. Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- If possible, tell me what needs to be modified Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand what it means that these pictures are stitched together with image downloaded from the Internet but I don't think you own the copyright on these maps. In other words, I believe that these maps are copyrighted and should not be here. --Botev (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- sorry my english is not good
- 我不太懂智慧財產權相關規定,這些圖片大部分是我從網路上下載然後自己拼起來的 Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said - because the maps you found on the Internet are probably copyrighted, you cannot post these pictures here - even if you added some extra work to them. --Botev (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- ok This is the source of some pictures http://igrek.amzp.pl/details.php?id=11781673 Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still - no rationale as to why the maps would be copyright-free. What's more - the website says that some of those maps are published for non-commercial purposes [5], which is not allowed on Commons. Delete --Botev (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then I renamed the copyright to igrek.amzp.pl , okay? Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- and This site may contain copyright-related information http://mapy.eksploracja.pl/viewpage.php?page_id=21 Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Uwagi techniczne:
- W celu zabezpieczenia zbioru przed komercyjnym zastosowaniem - wszystkie mapy zostały "okaleczone" znakiem wodnym. Jest to konieczne, gdyż w przeszłości już nie raz mapy z tego zbioru były nielegalnie sprzedawane na Allegro a także przez Topmap [ http://www.chem.univ.gda.pl/~tomek/mapy.htm].
- Publikowane na tej stronie mapy można wykorzystywać w dowolnym niekomercyjnym celu. Pod pojęciem "niekomercyjny cel" mam na myśli sytuację w której mapa nie stanowi bezpośredniego przedmiotu sprzedaży w postaci cyfrowej bądź analogowej (np sprzedaż skanów map na Allegro, sprzedaż papierowych wydruków map). Krótko mówiąc, jedyne obostrzenia dotyczą przypadku bezpośredniej sprzedaży map, a nie ich wykorzystywania ich w większych dziełach, nawet komercyjnych, w których mapa jest podrzędnym elementem. Śmiało wykorzystuj mapy, choćby w płatnych publikacjach książkowych, filmach, magazynach, artykułach, stronach internetowych. W takich przypadkach nawet nie pytaj o zgodę. Mile widziane jest przy tym podanie informacji o źródle mapy." Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not OK. The commercial usage of images uploaded to Commons must not be restricted in any way. These maps simply cannot be here, whatever you do. Sorry. --Botev (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- ok Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- but why this file can at this File:A32 B40 Ejszyszki 1926.jpg Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is clearly written why. Because it's been more than 70 years since publication, the author is unknown and the European law applies which states it is in public domain under these circumstances. Your maps don't meet all those criteria. Neither do they meet the criteria for {{PD-Russia}}. --Botev (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not OK. The commercial usage of images uploaded to Commons must not be restricted in any way. These maps simply cannot be here, whatever you do. Sorry. --Botev (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Still - no rationale as to why the maps would be copyright-free. What's more - the website says that some of those maps are published for non-commercial purposes [5], which is not allowed on Commons.
- ok This is the source of some pictures http://igrek.amzp.pl/details.php?id=11781673 Twistinez-Taiwaner (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said - because the maps you found on the Internet are probably copyrighted, you cannot post these pictures here - even if you added some extra work to them. --Botev (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand what it means that these pictures are stitched together with image downloaded from the Internet but I don't think you own the copyright on these maps. In other words, I believe that these maps are copyrighted and should not be here. --Botev (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Suspicious claim this photo was made by family members but appears like it could have very well just been taken from any one of these websites https://lens.google.com/search?p=ASQ0Rg3jScreuFdpJF5VRWO4_3nV5Ybq-o1h4zoy8Kd0tp5fU9udw0rw2lCLpCDu2G7f_rHIThoKImpQOGmBr2POl4PE98EOLc9KKzw17KECA5C4uCVwbDQCxNgvqeNw6bLbVTS_t-iEH5X52RBjNi6R0-b-ToD9i4c0XjA9fTP0dx5uE5OCRxJQ8-L-TIfihu8t9l9Dndj3K2IOrvqVZC9dKJxx9yi-eEAQlSuKYhkLpdpd_MfJYvLzq3qv7kSWcBSL8QOHfj5EkGWrzYhE-W0E961_PpmYkIv8katULrH5raRXEQbk7HO7z1ee7JnI9_Eb6Ks55o6Ji2Ey2GClCw%3D%3D&s&ep=ccm#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKREJtTkRCa1ptUXlMV0U0TVRBdE5HUXhaUzFoTm1Oa0xXRXdNR014TURZNE5qWmtaQklmWXpOR1NVeGZPRW94YUc5VlJVWkRjWGQ0VEhKTVVEYzJYMFpuYVVGb1p3PT0iXQ== Putitonamap98 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of permission appears to come from another website: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuI_15ulgPgDYTN8S-6Cgn4riUmw5Y14f1oST6ixNphvxoMGvDex67hT2P_1DSsZKEr3sGs6QHGKHHlyEvqIg9jwUyk29a018BTR8yjrXzXOp0JD0WebDY0nvpt87VuUWV4ZNL366rXtZIyQodKC0oIqQI17QOg&ei=iZVWYpfkKcyqqtsP1tOy2Ao&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjXzJDa2pD3AhVMlWoFHdapDKsQ8tMDegQIARA_&biw=1600&bih=721&dpr=2.4 Putitonamap98 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded an image from this flickr ID, then called for its deletion when, a closer review suggested they routinely claimed images should be PD, when they were postcards, posters, or magazine ads that would clearly still be proprietary. A tineye search [6] shows many other sites using this image, so I strongly suspect it too was flickr-washed. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Flickr user Agnes Happen uploaded this image to flickr less than a year ago, but some of the alternates tineye found date back ten years, like this one. Geo Swan (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, advertising or self-promotion. Perfektsionist (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also delete: File:Ficção De Fã - O Filme.jpg, File:Uma Aventura Mística.jpg and File:Ficção De Fã - O Filme Por Thales Egidio.jpg. Perfektsionist (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Subject has created at least four accounts to edit about himself Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio. Please use OSM for mapping purposes. Enyavar (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Berginspektor passed away some years ago. Although i'm not sure that tagging this image with google is right, it should be redone using free sources, i.e. OSM. Markscheider (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Wilcin4a.jpg Enyavar (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Obviously a screenshot cuto out from a TV or news broadcast (look how blurry it is), this is not an original photograph as stated. 79.223.222.139 12:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
The artifacts on the images suggest they are digital representations (scans, but most probably photos) of physical photos. 'Own work' claim is questionable.
Gikü (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
File:Advertising poster for the exhibition The Birth of Modern Greece in Louvre museum (2021-2022).jpg
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since) Tangopaso (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1. The painting "on the terrace" of this advertisement was painted by Iavovos Rikos (1849-1926). He is dead since more 70 years, so his works are no more copyrighted.
- 2. The remnants of the advertisement are regular text under the threshold of originality.
- Keep --Tangopaso (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Tangopaso. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Previously published elsewhere on the web (e.g. [7]), no evidence that the uploader is the rights holder as claimed HaeB (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since) Tangopaso (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The painting "on the terrace" of this advertisement was painted by Iavovos Rikos (1849-1926). He is dead since more 70 years, so his works are no more copyrighted.--Tangopaso (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but the graphic design of the poster can be copyrighted, however I can understand that it could be below the ToO. Ruthven (msg) 20:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1. The painting "on the terrace" of this advertisement was painted by Iavovos Rikos (1849-1926). He is dead since more 70 years, so his works are no more copyrighted.
- 2. The remnants of the advertisement are regular text under the threshold of originality.
- Keep --Tangopaso (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Tangopaso. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Our of COM:SCOPE, ad (ro:Asociatia Povestea Mea) Gikü (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Not explicitly stated to be in the public domain. Sahaib (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, fails COM:LR. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to the previous discussion, the image actually comes from the now-defunct Jurassic Park Institute website, and not the person who uploaded it at Dinopedia. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Image not CC (As it was made before CC was invented).Pyramids09 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality photo; subject barely visible. There are plenty of other photos of the Buffalo Exchange Street station on Commons (see Category:Buffalo–Exchange Street station) and this one adds nothing new, to say the least. Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighed image Jelican9 (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No used, this is just --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 20:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![106 File:"1644773326742210819649238542354.jpg".jpg](#File:"1644773326742210819649238542354.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![141 File:Коллектив "ЛИТВИНЕНКО".jpg](#File:Коллектив_"ЛИТВИНЕНКО".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_particolare_della_scala_d'ingresso_08.jpg){kind=link}
_particolare_della_scala_d'ingresso_11.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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![14:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/13#c-Leonel_Sohns-2022-04-13T14:30:00.000Z-File:"1644773326742210819649238542354.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![20:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/13#c-Achim55-2022-04-29T20:56:00.000Z-File:"1644773326742210819649238542354.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![07:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/13#c-Hoyanova-2022-04-13T07:36:00.000Z-File:Коллектив_"ЛИТВИНЕНКО".jpg){kind=link}
![16:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/13#c-P199-2022-06-02T16:04:00.000Z-File:Коллектив_"ЛИТВИНЕНКО".jpg){kind=link}
_Bratislava_1981.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Bratislava_1981.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10k_1981.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10K_1978.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10K_1973.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_25K_1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10K_1973.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10K_1988.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10K_1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_25K_1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Reason: this photo has no license, it catch from facebook. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am the author who took the photo (it's not taken from facebook). However since the person portrayed demanded deletion, I support and request speedy deletion of the photo. --Wikimycota (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some more details: this photo was a selfie Prof. Yen and I took together with my phone during my visit to his office back in 2015. I uploaded this photo to Wikimedia Commons from my phone in February this year (the original photo was cropped to remove my face, only retaining Prof. Yen's). However, 2 days ago (2022.4.13), Prof. Yen demanded both his page in the Chinese Wikipedia and this photo to be deleted. He initially said in the facebook post that this photo was taken from his facebook without permission, which was a misunderstanding (hence User:Alfredo ougaowen's reason above). This photo was in fact my own work and did not violate Commons's copyright policy.
- Nevertheless, I fully respect Mr. Yen's portrait rights. Since he does not want his photo in Commons, I hereby request speedy deletion of this photo. Thank you very much. --Wikimycota (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PEOPLE. --沈澄心✉ 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- If this is true, then it is likely illegal under the Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act. Because it is illegal take photographs or recording in private spaces, such as indoor office. Just saying I don't encourage anyone to break the law, not trying to intimidate anyone.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- To admins: this request has been placed for nearly a month, and everyone above clearly and unanimously supports deletion. Please delete this photo ASAP. Thanks.--Wikimycota (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hideously low quality. TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:INUSE. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
File:U.S._states_as_World_countries_and_territories_by_population.svg John emil hernandez (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of File: 6 102778 RR yards view of skyline Chicago.jpg . Both original by me. I mistakenly uploaded 2 versions. Downtowngal (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 12:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
{{Vd}} per nom. No plausible assertion of compatible licensing or public domain status. The journal in which this article was published does not appear to be open access.--Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)- Keep per TE(æ)A,ea.'s better research below. The article is licensed under CC BY 3.0, as indicated both at the original publisher (Sage) and inline in the PDF itself. I have (minimally) updated the file's description page to reflect this. --Xover (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The Journal of Laboratory Automation (JALA), now SLAS Technology, is now published by Elsevier. That page states that it is an “Open Access” journal, but it does not give access to the issue from which this PDF is derived, indicating that such article is not automatically Open Access. The old publisher does have a list of articles, and while most are only “Free Access,” this article is “Open Access,” released under a CC BY license. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Description: "For my sandbox". Seems to be a alternate History" fictional map of Austria-Hungary, but Germany hast its post WW2 shape?! I'm not an expert but i doubt its validity. IMHO private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be scan of historic photo. Unlikely to actually be own work. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Outdated picture. Not used anywhere. No longer wished to be public. 2601:3C6:4180:8610:E5D8:D6E8:B6FB:44B5 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Deletion is wished. Hax6775 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; appears to be OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Fop in France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. This sculpture is a recent one (2000?) Tangopaso (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, work by Niki de Saint Phalle|Niki de Saint Phalle, not in the public domain. Miniwark (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Urheberrechtlich geschütztes Foto ohne Freigabe des Fotografen Jbergner (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The licensing for this photo is wrong and this is a copyvio. This photo was posted on Flickr by the NC National Guard (which is a state organization, not part of the federal army) with an attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license, which is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons (see link here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncngpao/8358880969/). Since the rights holder restricts reuse for no derivatives, this image should be deleted. This is a crop of the original and thus technically already in direct violation of the license. Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It says "A Test" and "Sanbox". No explenation what the colors mean. Not usefull. Out of Scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Fop in France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. This artwork was created in 1984 Tangopaso (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted photo, presented as a personal work, but the work of another person. No clear indication that the photographer put the photo under cc license. Apparently added by the subject of the photo for the article he created about himself on the French wikipedia (Luca Del Rex is the annagram of Claus Drexel). Auteur i ter (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Credits for the image can be seen on the french wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Drexel Auteur i ter (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted photo, presented as a personal work, but the work of another person. No clear indication that the photographer put the photo under cc license. Apparently added by the subject of the photo for the article he created about himself on the French wikipedia (Luca Del Rex is the annagram of Claus Drexel). Auteur i ter (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Credits for the image can be seen on the french wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Drexel Auteur i ter (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This file depict "Grand InterContinental Seoul" established in 1989 (per kowiki article), while there is no FoP in South Korea, and this file is not a general skyline which means it does not fit de minims exception. Stang★ 22:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent building. No FOP in Romania. Gikü (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It can hardly be an "own work". Where is the picture from? It's probably not a problem to keep it for reasons of age, but the author and source should be properly cited. Xocolatl (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Cataloguing error at HTSA: It is identical to File:South Australian Railways 700 class "Mikado" type steam locomotive (GN06908) (cropped).jpg, which is a slightly less scrached print and which was misidentified as a 500 class. With the correct title, there is now no reason to retain two copies. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The files are similar but not the same. The difference can be seen, when looking at the white background, which has been skillfully retouched in the photographer's dark room. Thus, I propose to keep both files, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - this one is bigger, but the other one is lighter and easier to see the details. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Western Indiana Conference 2016-.pdf Enyavar (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thakurvivashwat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Choudhary kedarnath thakur in car.jpg
- File:Choudhary Kedarnath Thakur .jpg
- File:Munindra Palace.jpg
- File:Mohan Palace, Darbhanga.jpg
- File:CKNT at Munindra Mahal.jpg
- File:CKNT With his third wife.jpg
- File:Choudhary kedarnath Thakur.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:CKNT at Munindra Mahal.jpg, File:Munindra Palace.jpg and File:Choudhary kedarnath thakur in car.jpg. These are so bad that I'm removing them from the article, so nobody argues "in use". The flash glare is terrible. Images are worse than nothing and we already have some images of the guy.
- Weak delete File:Mohan Palace, Darbhanga.jpg. Not as bad as the others, and probably old enough, but we just can't tell for certain that it's in the public domain per death date like we can with the Choudhary Kedarnath Thakur images. It's also not good enough to be worth the time investigating.
- Keep File:CKNT With his third wife.jpg, File:Choudhary kedarnath Thakur.jpg, and File:Choudhary Kedarnath Thakur .jpg. The subject died in 1952, so these are certain to be in the public domain per {{PD-India}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no PD India before the URAA date. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Historical drawing. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from advertisement. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably by GCTC, Space Adventures or africaninspace.com, not own work. Transwiki it back to the es.wiki unless the uploaded can proof that it his work. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Found on Space Adventures on 2018, which predates the 2019 Commons upload. Space Adventure is copyrighted, and not a CC licensed source. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
insufficient description, no use, insufficient categorization; may be spam XRay 💬 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation (file belongs to a company) HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's no plausible assertion of compatible licensing or public domain status. --Xover (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a report by the “Inland Empire Utilities Agency,” formerly known as the “Chino Basin Municipal Water District,” a municipal authority of the State of California, which is in the public domain per PD-CAGov. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not though. Inland Empire Utilities Agency is a special district, which means no assumptions can be made about the copyright status of its publications. It need not even be subject to CA law at all (only federal law), depending on how it was set up. You'd need to delve way way deep into the enabling law and jurisprudence to be able to even sensibly guess at the actual status. Xover (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Xover: The California government license is more liberal than you give it credit. Just because special districts can be set up in some way does not mean that this one has been. The Agency was set up as a “Municipal Water District,” clearly a “municipal government agenc[y]” which “derives its powers from the laws of the State of California.” In other words, “any government entity which derives its power from the State, cannot enforce a copyright” to reports such as this one. Certain types of records are not public domain, and certain entities may claim copyright, but neither apply to this report or to the Agency. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not though. Inland Empire Utilities Agency is a special district, which means no assumptions can be made about the copyright status of its publications. It need not even be subject to CA law at all (only federal law), depending on how it was set up. You'd need to delve way way deep into the enabling law and jurisprudence to be able to even sensibly guess at the actual status. Xover (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - This is a report prepared by GHD, a private company, which clearly claims copyright -- see copyright notice on the last page. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Because this is a trans woman who no longer looks like that and she doesn't want an old picture in the very beginning of her transition to represent her. 2001:16B8:460F:4C00:83E:6D4:6871:6E30 21:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion & in use. --Achim55 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Why would that not be a valid reason for deletion? This is a level of decent respect for trans women that you should have. 2001:16B8:46BB:3F00:2D38:626:4213:F173 10:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am the photographer and I support this deletion request. I do not see the need for keeping an image that is no longer representative for the subject - especially if it is harmfull. We are talking about a Photo of an identifieble person and the official guideline states "administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests if good reasons can be given". I think we have two good reasons here. /Sofie Sigrinn (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why is this taking so long delete? What kind of bureaucracy is this? 176.58.195.54 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - We rarely delete images at the request of the subject, even more rarely when they are used widely as this one is, and never at the request of thrid parties who may be working at the request of the subject or as vandals against the interests of the subject. The subject herself may submit a request to VRT, which will likely request a replacement free image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Centro Espositivo di Arte Contemporanea (Caltanissetta) particolare della scala d'ingresso 08.jpg
[edit]_particolare_della_scala_d%27ingresso_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_particolare_della_scala_d%27ingresso_08.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
doppione OppidumNissenae (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Centro Espositivo di Arte Contemporanea (Caltanissetta) particolare della scala d'ingresso 11.jpg
[edit]_particolare_della_scala_d%27ingresso_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_particolare_della_scala_d%27ingresso_11.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
doppione OppidumNissenae (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Sieht aus wie ein abgescanntes Bild ohne Angabe des Fotografen, zudem Recht am eigenen Bild in den ersten 10 Jahren noch nach dem Tod. Jbergner (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Murder victim whose murder made the news in 2016, found multiple times on the Internet in reports since then, unlikely to be the uploader's work as claimed. If it is the uploader's work, we'd need a COM:VRT permission to confirm it. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING minhhuy (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Một lần nữa AnVuong1222004 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Một lần nữa AnVuong1222004 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- 150px
- 150px AnVuong1222004 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- 150px
- 150px AnVuong1222004 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:Mì Hảo Hảo.jpg per nom. Keep the TV logos as {{PD-textlogo}} and in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Làm giàu AnVuong1222004 (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING minhhuy (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Baldachin33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Postkarte Willinghusener Bahnhof.png
- File:Mannschaftsfoto WSC 2.Herren 1980-1981.png
- File:Chor Harmonie.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not enough information to determine the copyright status of these files. A 1980/81 photo is definitely still copyrighted, and while the postcard featuring the train station looks old, the station wasn't built before 1905 per de:Willinghusen, so it's definitely not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This file was uploaded in 2006 and subsequently deleted as a copyvio in 2017 by Jcb with no explanation or evidence. Starting a DR to discuss the provenance of this image.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: couldn't find it on the web (using reverse image search with TinEye and Google Images) before its upload here. In the absence of any evidence or even just a hint of copyvio I'll assume it is own work of the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind, looking at the upload history of this user has given me enough doubt to delete these per the precautionary principle. Own work is still possible, but seems less likely to me now. --Rosenzweig τ 08:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that this (very likely copyright) logo is released under this licence. It's also highly likely that the logo is owned by the organiser not the graphic designer who was paid to produce it. The image belongs on en.wikipedia under a fair use rationale, not here on Commons. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: I think this is above the notoriously low COM:TOO UK. --Rosenzweig τ 08:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
obsolete design, can be obtained by overlaying ZandDev (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ZandDev file is in use. Which design is not obsolete? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Rosenzweig τ 10:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work, not proven to be owned by the uploader. MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please delete it as I entered the wrong copyright. Chacecola (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission to use this logo. I think the copyright holder is CHENGDU Yiwo Tech Development Co., Ltd. It might not be covered by COM:TOO China. MarioGom (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please delete it as I entered the wrong copyright license, thanks. Chacecola (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of license laundering as this logo is property of Film Zone inc, not the uploader. This is a logo of their festival named Festival international du cinéma en Acadie. LaTerreACotta (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @LaTerreACotta I guess that this logo is not a complex one, and correct license is {{PD-textlogo}}. But the file is not in use. Same case here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo series ficfa.png Estopedist1 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: probably not the uploader's own work, but IMO below COM:TOO Canada, which is not as low as in the UK and closer to that of the US. The festival also seems to be notable per en:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie and fr:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie. --Rosenzweig τ 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of license laundering as this logo is property of Film Zone inc, not the uploader. This is a logo regarding their festival named Festival international du cinéma en Acadie. LaTerreACotta (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: probably not the uploader's own work, but IMO below COM:TOO Canada, which is not as low as in the UK and closer to that of the US. The festival also seems to be notable per en:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie and fr:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie. --Rosenzweig τ 10:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of license laundering as this logo is property of Film Zone inc, not the uploader. This is a logo regarding their festival named Festival international du cinéma en Acadie. LaTerreACotta (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: probably not the uploader's own work, but IMO below COM:TOO Canada, which is not as low as in the UK and closer to that of the US. The festival also seems to be notable per en:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie and fr:Festival international du cinéma francophone en Acadie. --Rosenzweig τ 10:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Faute d'orthographe dans le titre Benjleb (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pas besoin de supprimer. Allez sur votre page et appuyez sur Shift-Alt-m pour renommer le fichier. --Achim55 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Question Are these clocks copyrighted or not? I've asked this at the Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 16:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: use the rename function to change the file name. Ver COM:VPC PD-US-no-notice or PD-US-not-renewed seems likely for the clocks as such. If they turn out to be still copyrighted after all, please nominate for deletion again for that reason. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Historical postcard (uses old russian orfografy rules) - no source, date original author. Is not own original work. Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Да я с Вами полностью согласен. Данная открытка была мной загружена как собственная работа, что сделано по ошибке. Эта открытка была выпущена издательством "Братья Борисовы" город Новороссийск 1917 год. Источник. http://www.myekaterinodar.ru/sochi/cards/sochi-khludovskiiy-park/ https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=33480041 Stronghold Sochi (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-RusEmpire}}. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Per [8] this is a screenshot from a video by this Youtube channel. I didn't spot any videos there that would be CC. Certainly uploader cannot claim own work. Gikü (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Copyvio. HouseBlaster (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also found here two weeks before it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Violação por Direitos Autorais. 187.99.233.47 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Se você é User:Joana Policarpo faça o login por favor. --Achim55 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, apparently an album cover photo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
There isn't permission for Pope John Paul II's picture. Stv26 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a PD-photograph in Italy, but it is copyrighted in the United States because it was restored by the URAA (1 January 1996).
- 79.145.148.64 21:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep: If this is a public domain photograph in its country of origin, though we'd have to delete it if it is not in the public domain in the United States. The page for the pope's picture (File:John Paul II.jpg) indicates that the picture of the pope is in the public domain in Italy, but the date of the photograph is too late to be before the URAA restoration date. HOWEVER, I would be floored if the relevant photo—the official portrait of John Paul II—was not published in the United States within thirty days of its publication in Italy, which would itself render the work ineligible for restoration.
- On top of that, I was able to find a website that appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point, which might make the image free under a different license anyway. Fotografia Felici was a Rome-based photography company that apparently closed in 2015, but their old website appears to be a java applet for a good part of its history so the internet archive doesn't really let me peak in. I'm seeing other photographs on commons, such as File:Besuch_bei_Papst_Joh._Paul_-_Foto_Felici_Roma_k.jpg, that appear to be released under CC-BY 3.0 and have the same company as its source, so it's plausible that the photograph might actually be released under CC-BY-3.0, even if the photo were copyrighted in the United States (which I would find unlikely). But, in that case, the only requirement would be that we give attribution to them in our derivative work; there isn't a sharealike requirement and we could very simply remedy this by making explicit attribution in the summary (we already kinda do this) rather than by deleting the file.
- Either way this is sliced, I think that it is very unlikely that hosting this image on commons would constitute a copyright violation. As such, I lean towards keeping. Mhawk10 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete URAA restores copyright and there is not enough information to decide what the Hirtle chart says about it. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This is a derivative work of File:John Paul II.jpg, which is in PD according to the file page. So this image can be kept too. --Ellywa (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Quote: "this is a derivative work of file which is in PD according to the file page". What a kappa argument. According to the file page PD is unknown especially that is has template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. ptjackyll (leave a message) 15:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ptjackyll: . Could you be so kind to explain what "kappa argument" means? I will add this image to the DR of File:John Paul II.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Paul II.jpg so these images can be considered in conjunction. Ellywa (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Its's a slang phrase which emphasize irony or sarcasm. But never mind. Conjuctions is a good idea. I thought that you just kept this one, ignoring the second DR. ptjackyll (leave a message) 16:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ptjackyll: . Could you be so kind to explain what "kappa argument" means? I will add this image to the DR of File:John Paul II.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Paul II.jpg so these images can be considered in conjunction. Ellywa (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
TV screenshot COM:DW, no evidence of free license A.Savin 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Я не помню, откуда это файл. Скорее всего, создавался по запросу на иллюстрирование. Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Всё, разобрался: File:Сергей Калантай.jpg. Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, cropped version of mentioned file. I added the original author to the file page. --Ellywa (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. No sign of a CC licence at the cited source[9]. I think it's above TOO, but I'm not sure. bjh21 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: if this logo is above TOO, then same problem with the files in this category: Category:Tomorrow X Together logos--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
