Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/08/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Not users own work, file stolen off User: OSX Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Náhrál/a jsem to omylem Matyvolf (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupe of File:Lucie Bílá Český slavík 21. JBG.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Saya mengunggahnya secara tidak sengaja Noneumoslh (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already 2 weeks ago by Fitindia. --Achim55 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a photo taken by me. I thought of it twice and I would no longer like it to be here. Please delete it. Sercerozum (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The picture is most likely a copyright infringement. It is a company profile, which can be found exactly as it is on the Internet. Unfortunately, the link is classified as spam, so I can't share it here. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Fraudulent source – this image belongs to M 93 per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Audi_A6_3.0_TDI_quattro_(C7)_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_2._April_2011,_Hilden.jpg – definitely a copyvio for sure Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
False information, user reported Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See File:BMW 5-Series F07 GT 01 China 2012-06-16.jpg. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Náhrál/a jsem to omylem Matyvolf (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupe of File:Česko Slovensko má talent 2019 2.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted again: Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Извините, это изображение не для энциклопедии Музыч (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:57, 1 August 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: promo/press photo --Krdbot 19:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrong name/data (I am the page creator) Brgesto (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: File page with no file. --Achim55 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
self promotion, out of project scope Discostu (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:52, 1 August 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: promo/press photo --Krdbot 19:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Arturo_de_C%C3%B3rdova_and_Turhan_Bey_in_Adventures_of_Casanova_(1948)_(cropped).jpg 2003:E3:BF3D:4584:E928:DF8E:8DF9:483 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Arturo_de_C%C3%B3rdova_and_Turhan_Bey_in_Adventures_of_Casanova_(1948)_(cropped).jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No, not a dupe but one is a crop of the other. The original file carries some info at the bottom, so a deletion won't be useful. --Achim55 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Suhayl091 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Werner_Brix_5881.jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep They are images of the same person at the same event, but not identical images. Republishers want to be able to make their own choices of which image they prefer. You are not saving server space, because we don't actually delete the images, just hide them. --RAN (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: They are images of the same person at the same event, but not identical images. --Raymond 05:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Werner_Brix_5881.jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: They are images of the same person at the same event, but not identical images. --Raymond 05:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Image was nominated for speedy deletion by Discospinster with comment This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.yonasan.org/portraits.html Mhawk10 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep The images on <https://www.yonasan.org/portraits.html> are clearly licensed under CC-BY-SA, as the website states that All images on this site are Creative Commons (Attribution-Share Alike) - feel free to use and enjoy. The speedy deletion request was made in error, as we cannot be violating the website owner's copyright based off of that statement. See also Ticket:2022080110009308. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt'l.jpg” under ticket:2022080110009308. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The result was Speedy keep ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The user has already been noticed several times by violating copyright. This picture with poor resolution and no information about the camera and a most likely wrong date will not be an exception here. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The user has already been guilty of copyright infringement several times. This picture has no information about the camera and the watermark is also noticeable. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Suhayl091 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete Blurry, and also, who knows who we're looking at? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obviously a screenshot. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
J’ai pensé que ce n’était pas bon pour ma vie privée Chaalaloussama91 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Petit et pas utilise'. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused file with a blurred photo of non-notable persons with no explanatory description, no educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons with no explanatory description, no educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of a non-notable person with no explanatory description, no educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused file of non-notable persons with no explanatory description, no educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused file of non-notable persons with no explanatory description, no educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Supposedly, the image represent a head of "Cerberus", but is simply a dark photo of a dog. ZebaX2010 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Oos garbage Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Powerpradeepdr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
- File:Pradeep D R.png
- File:29DAC670-754C-4D29-99E3-CEDEDC5F9A2GF.jpg
- File:D1AEBEF0-D32F-4075-997C-0C2CFF55B9EU.jpg
- File:125A6AB4-3BED-4C97-B984-4298061125BS.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused out of scope selfie image, with no EXIF or description indicating the the uploader has rights to this image Acabashi (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Also has a watermark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Apparent copyright violation Tom354 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded by User:Matt Crypto, but the source given is http://issamichuzi.blogspot.com/ (where I see no indication of freely licensed images) and the author "Issa Michuzi". So the deletion request is understandable, though there are hints in the file history that the photographer might have given informal permission back in 2006, see the first few edits ("by assertion of Odoo on en:, who got that image from Michuzi's blog"). The image from English Wikipedia referred to there, however, was also deleted. I suppose that's not enough for this file to fall under Commons:Grandfathered old files. That's unfortunate, as this is a good image of Arusha and in use in many projects. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
This is advertisement. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance here. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional spam. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Info Image completely different from the previously deleted file with the same name. I agree, promotional spam, Delete. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Suhayl091 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry, not useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry, Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry, not useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
unused, no valid description, three colored bars, no apparent use ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
unused, no valid description, three colored bars, no apparent use ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
no educational value, unused. This is a brief essay about something, but not a useful something. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 19:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Contents:
Sævar Atli and Óðinn
I get chills when I hear these names and I just feel sick these men are disgusting and are just criminals.
Sævar was born on June 3, 2008 in Reykjavík, but moved to deep water after birth, he is very sluggish and
hates women that's the reason why he is a criminal and has often been taken for
come too close to the play sole, which is a bit strange if you don't know the story it's in
RESTRICTIONS IN THE KINDERGARTEN. Óðinn was born in 2007 on September 14 in Reykjavík, but he moved to Djúpsvög early after his birth.
is big on girls and boys and animals he hates life but loves boys and very young girls his favorite animals are sloths and foxes.
These men are criminals and nothing else- I have no idea what the point of this PDF is, and I can see no educational (or other) use for this document. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
low quality, practically unusable Gampe (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete --Gampe (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Suhayl091 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry, and seems to be amateur art by someone non-notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is my grand father Capplannetta (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is the photo of my grandfather. I wanna what inmortality in this times of World Wide web, im sorry what result one problemm, i love for grandfather, please help. Capplannetta (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing against your grandfather, but was he famous for anything? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- for remenber the memory of the war In Spain, please, is memory story 90.175.77.71 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- But this is not a picture of the war. One of my uncles died fighting the Nazis in World War II. If I were to upload some kind of computer-processed image of his face, it wouldn't be kept as useful. This isn't about not honoring your grandfather's service. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- for remenber the memory of the war In Spain, please, is memory story 90.175.77.71 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing against your grandfather, but was he famous for anything? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright issue. no permission Miha2020 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
out of scope. cross wiki spam. previously deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
File from globally locked cross-wiki spammer. Previously deleted under this file name and multiple others (see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pecy L.jpg). Marbletan (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation, no description, out of scope Xocolatl (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Personal file from globally locked cross-wiki spammer. Previously deleted many times under this file name and multiple others (see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pecy L.jpg). Marbletan (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused logo. Lymantria (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete speed delete as F10 --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I own thd photo as its my company's product. I am the individual in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madd Da Don (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. ✗plicit 01:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in the United States for 3D sculptures. Subject is a 2007 work by en:Tony Tasset. Needs permission from him via COM:VRT. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 01:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a selfie. We need a permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.
Yann (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Upload is no longer relevant. This file was originally intended to be used as part of a discussion of another deletion request, but was never actually used. OmenBreeze (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
better version: File:高潞·以用·巴魕剌.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
wrong date, probably wrong source, low quality, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a screenshot. QTHCCAN (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
low quality, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen, subido por ocio Felinardo1 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen, subido por ocio Felinardo1 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen, subido por ocio Felinardo1 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen, subido por ocio Felinardo1 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen, subido por ocio Felinardo1 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright image - Marie Claire Korea https://annyeongoppa.com/2019/05/20/lee-dong-wook-graces-the-cover-of-marie-claire-magazine/ Evaders99 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, vanity selfie Acabashi (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Decent photo, but considering that he tried to write a vanity autobiography on Wikipedia, deletion is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
low quality, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The person depicted in the photo isn't James R. Ballantyne, but James Ballantyne (1808-1877), stained glass artist and writer. Here's the original post's link: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw00310/James-Ballantyne?LinkID=mp00232&role=sit&rNo=0 Crannabeatha (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I changed the name. Good detective work! Most of the usage came from Wikidata and once fixed there, all but English were fixed because of they don't use Wikidata info. --RAN (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Could you remove the picture? James Robert Ballantyne (1813-1864 unknown photo) and James Ballantyne (1808-1877) are not the same person. Crannabeatha (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- That photo belongs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ballantine Crannabeatha (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Crannabeatha: I replaced the previous photo with it in en:James Ballantyne in this edit for you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Crannabeatha: remove the picture from where? File:James Ballantyne (1808-1877).jpg appears to be where it belongs. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- From the wikipedia article about James Robert Ballantyne Crannabeatha (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Crannabeatha: Thanks, I removed it from en:James Robert Ballantyne in this edit for you. Please use internal links. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- From the wikipedia article about James Robert Ballantyne Crannabeatha (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- That photo belongs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ballantine Crannabeatha (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Could you remove the picture? James Robert Ballantyne (1813-1864 unknown photo) and James Ballantyne (1808-1877) are not the same person. Crannabeatha (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Issue resolved. --James F. (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted artwork, no FOP in Finland. Artist died in 2019. (Finnish article for the monument has a locally hosted fair use image: fi:Sodanajan naisen muistomerkki.) kyykaarme (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader: yes, true, undelete in 2090. Thanks, Nemo 21:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- File:2017-02-22 Helsinki.jpg - This image has the same issue. @Nemo bis: I assume you agree? -kyykaarme (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. --James F. (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Autochrome of gentlemen in military and civic clothing on Place du Luxembourg, Brussels (c.1911) by Alfonse Van Besten.jpg
[edit]The enhancement work is copyright Stuart Humphryes and is not in the public domain. The original unenhanced version of the autochrome should be used in Wiki Commons TheBabelColour (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I am the digital artist [| Stuart Humphryes] and I work to repair & enhance autochromes. The photo enhancement in question is my work and it is not copyright-free, nor is it in the public domain and should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It remains my intellectual property. I see from the File History on the photo that they have openly removed my watermark! This should be removed and the original, un-enhanced version of the autochrome used in its place. TheBabelColour (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Images with watermarks cannot be used on this site. The question would be whether you can copyright an edited version of an old photograph. I don't know what the laws are concerning that and would leave the decision up to an admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- - REPLAYING TO IKAN KEKEK - I'd just like to add that - if as you state - watermarked images cannot be used on this site, it is surely not acceptable to merely photoshop out an artist's watermark, as they have done here. They should seek out an unwatermarked version of the image, which would in turn be the original unenhanced version. Nicking someone's work, then airbrushing out their watermark and saying it is now public domain is not acceptable. And if this one is allowed, it stands that wikimedia commons is happy for his entire back catalogue of work to be treated in the same way. Thecurryman2004 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Whether it's OK to do that depends on copyright laws or in many instances on whether the photographer consents to the removal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- - REPLAYING TO IKAN KEKEK - I'd just like to add that - if as you state - watermarked images cannot be used on this site, it is surely not acceptable to merely photoshop out an artist's watermark, as they have done here. They should seek out an unwatermarked version of the image, which would in turn be the original unenhanced version. Nicking someone's work, then airbrushing out their watermark and saying it is now public domain is not acceptable. And if this one is allowed, it stands that wikimedia commons is happy for his entire back catalogue of work to be treated in the same way. Thecurryman2004 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The enhancement claims to restore "original colours", so is your derivative work – i.e. what you've added to the photograph you found – sufficiently original to be protected by copyright? In what way is a digital restoration more original than a physical one? For I have never heard it claimed that we can't reproduce physically restored artworks. It is a very difficult and time-consuming process, but the purpose of it is to stay as close as possible to the original, so it is not covered by copyright. I think our view of digital restoration should be similar. Don't take it that I'm trying to diminish your work, just putting more of a legal question! Karmakolle (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: I don't restore photos, I "enhance" them. I make them something new. That's why I watermark them and that is why I can publish and commercially exploit my work, and that it why they have no place in Wikimedia Commons. TheBabelColour (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- You claim to have removed yellow staining & to not have added any new colour. Karmakolle (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: I am well aware of what my work involves, I clean and repair the physical faults, I colour re-balance, I use algorithms and Ai deep learning neural networking algorithms to enhance the detail, I upscale the files, extrapolate pixels and apply noise reduction, I do many things to make autochromes look contemporary. Read my Wikipedia page for more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Humphryes TheBabelColour (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not disputing this, but again the similarities to physical restoration and its advanced techniques jump out to me. Is it truly something new when you want to recreate the original? Leaving the judgment call to admins. Karmakolle (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I say, I am not "recreating the original". I am creating something new and different to what the original would have looked like. TheBabelColour (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, no one can exactly recreate the original. But is it not your aim to approximate it as closely as possible? Or to put it differently, in what way do you strive to differ from the presumed original? Karmakolle (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: I have made a name for myself by contemporizing old photos, taking early photography and treating it by using Ai to approximate modern digital photography. I don't just correct colour fading, I use algorithms and deep learning neural networking to enhance detail, remove the autochrome grain and make the image look like it was taken on an iphone rather than a 100-year-old glass plate smeared with potato starch.I do not try to approximate how a photo once looked, I do not seek to restore it to a former state, nor to make it look like it did when it was taken. The whole point of my work is to stop a photo looking old. I "enhance" rather than "restore" and I create something new. TheBabelColour (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, that seems indeed something different. I support your deletion request. Karmakolle (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: I nominated also the other file of yours here for deletion. Karmakolle (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: Thank you - and for the purposes of the Admin, I'd like to second the nomination to delete the other file, for the same reasons. TheBabelColour (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: I have made a name for myself by contemporizing old photos, taking early photography and treating it by using Ai to approximate modern digital photography. I don't just correct colour fading, I use algorithms and deep learning neural networking to enhance detail, remove the autochrome grain and make the image look like it was taken on an iphone rather than a 100-year-old glass plate smeared with potato starch.I do not try to approximate how a photo once looked, I do not seek to restore it to a former state, nor to make it look like it did when it was taken. The whole point of my work is to stop a photo looking old. I "enhance" rather than "restore" and I create something new. TheBabelColour (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, no one can exactly recreate the original. But is it not your aim to approximate it as closely as possible? Or to put it differently, in what way do you strive to differ from the presumed original? Karmakolle (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I say, I am not "recreating the original". I am creating something new and different to what the original would have looked like. TheBabelColour (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not disputing this, but again the similarities to physical restoration and its advanced techniques jump out to me. Is it truly something new when you want to recreate the original? Leaving the judgment call to admins. Karmakolle (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- REPLY: I am well aware of what my work involves, I clean and repair the physical faults, I colour re-balance, I use algorithms and Ai deep learning neural networking algorithms to enhance the detail, I upscale the files, extrapolate pixels and apply noise reduction, I do many things to make autochromes look contemporary. Read my Wikipedia page for more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Humphryes TheBabelColour (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- You claim to have removed yellow staining & to not have added any new colour. Karmakolle (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per creator's nomination; these are non-PD enhancements to PD images, and are not PD. --James F. (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Werner_Brix_en_Majenco_2020-02-14_a.jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Keep Well, I know many photos of the same subject at the same date in wikimedia commons, people, animals, plants and buildings, and in general that is no reason to delete every photo but one. Speaking e.g. of the "picture of the day" of today, in wikimedia commons there is
,_delta_del_Okavango,_Botsuana,_2018-07-31,_DD_09.jpg)
,_delta_del_Okavango,_Botsuana,_2018-07-31,_DD_10.jpg)
,_delta_del_Okavango,_Botsuana,_2018-07-31,_DD_11.jpg)
,_delta_del_Okavango,_Botsuana,_2018-07-31,_DD_12.jpg)
Would you say, there are three too much here in wikimedia commons? I wouldn't! Likewise
too are different moments and movements of the same subject at the same date, like
and so on. If you start discussions, which photos are somewhat similar and therefore redundant, you'll end with just one photo for one castle, church or other building (because buildings don't even move, just can be pictured at sunny or rainy days), and let's say one photo per person per day. To my understanding that is not the idea of wikimedia commons. ThomasPusch (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Keep The nominated photo is not very sharp, so it could be considered for deletion on that basis, but the claim that it's redundant does not really hold water, because the subject's posture is very different in each photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. The nominator should read up on our rules before making any more nominations. Maybe when we have as many images of Werner Brix as we have images of penises (>1,000 across multiple categories), we can start deleting them. --RAN (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not duplicates. Nomination of that makes nothing more than to waste time. Tm (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Could please anyone close this discussion? More than a week passed after the last entry, and I would say that everything is said. ThomasPusch (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Max_Figman_-_from_photo_by_Frank_C._Bangs,_San_Francisco._LCCN2014635516.jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Tiff and jpeg are not duplicates and the these these not duplicates. One format and\or image is for exhibition and other is for storage\archiving\preservation. Tm (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Max_Figman_LCCN2014635515.jpg Maximum 2520 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates." jpg is not tif. Vysotsky (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Tiff and jpeg are not duplicates and the these these not duplicates. One format and\or image is for exhibition and other is for storage\archiving\preservation. Tm (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Presumably copyvio like all the other uploads by this user. The artist, Herbert Duttler, apparently still is alive, so we would definitely need his consent for a Creative Commons license. 217.239.10.163 22:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
obvious copyvio: https://www.ovb-online.de/rosenheim/wasserburg/gymnasium-wasserburg-erleichterungen-geben-stueck-normalitaet-zurueck-90975843.html JD {æ} 22:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete very fast. --Eduevokrit (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photos of billboards CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work. ✗plicit 00:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I wasn't aware of that policy - is there any way that the image can be kept? Perhaps if I were to correct the licensing? JediMasterMacaroni (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Whpq (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
porque puede perjudicar al dueño de la casa Wankasil (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Question Como? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Blurred photo of an unspecified painting from an undisclosed museum in San Francisco, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Feyth (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, blurry, badly described, unused, uncat. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Blurred photograph - not even able to read the painting's description on the right - of an unspecified painting from an undisclosed San Francisco museum; no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Feyth (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Blurred and poorly exposed photo of Luca di Tommè's painting, of which there is a better shot:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mattia_Preti,_Predica_di_San_Giovanni_Battista,_The_Fine_Arts_Museum,_San_Francisco.jpg
unusable, out of scope. Feyth (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The copyright ("copyright 1969 by universal pictures") is visible at bottom left Sété40 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; false license claim, no alternative reason it would be free licensed offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image with no exif unlikely to be own work and same as linkedin pic of a non notable person whose article was deleted from WP Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This file should not be deleted, it does adhere to policies of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.13.140.211 (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete That article looks very short-lived to me, and I support deletion for the reasons given by Gbawden. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Died in 2014, can't be 2021 own work. Might be PD but needs source etc Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nemito isaac cossio mancilla (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images without metadata, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Buick Riviera Concept.jpg
- File:Ford Focus RS (Mk II).jpg
- File:Aston Martin One-77.jpg
- File:Mercedes-AMG GT3.jpg
Yann (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. It is clearly noted that the user is using fraudluent ways to acquire these images for own gain --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
because the name of file is not correct Mehdimoradzad (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Name mistake is not a reason for deletion as files can be renamed; very prompt uploader request is a valid reason for deletion regardless. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Identical to https://www.isc.hbs.edu/about-michael-porter/biography/Pages/default.aspx - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Some taken from https://www.facebook.com/northlakeofficial/, no meaningful exif, needs OTRS
- File:Northlakephotoshoot.jpg
- File:Deep ellum northlake.jpg
- File:Northlake together.jpg
- File:Northlake in color.jpg
- File:Dylanackelbein.jpg
- File:Northlakefront.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
EricEdwards1978.png
completely useless FMSky (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not very tasteful, but surely not "completely useless": currently in use in 3 Wikipedia articles. Vysotsky (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep not a very good illustration of either a butt or the subject but in use. Dronebogus (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Vysotsky, Dronebogus, and Ikan Kekek: Not in use anymore, was replaced with a much better one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EricEdwards1978.png -- FMSky (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A much better one that I uploaded myself, and the ones in use were replaced by ... FMSky. This image is illustrative for his profession. Vysotsky (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing the context. I'm not convinced the portrait is a better photo, but it's certainly better in that context. I have crossed out my vote and will leave it up to an admin to decide what to do with this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently out of copyright; no consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Blurry screenshot of an actor for whom there is a portrait screenshot (File:EricEdwards1978.png). Not a good illustration of either the actor or the body part. No longer in use now that I have removed it from arz:ايريك_ادواردز. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't seem to serve a useful educational purpose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete agreed MaskedSinger (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Eric Edwards was a porn actor. The illustration is a harmless screenshot that is illustrative for his profession. It is quite obvious that the image is not in use anymore, if you yourself remove it from Wikipedia pages. Vysotsky (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:NOTUSED. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
low quality, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, apparent DW/video screenshot. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation? see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
wrong date - she is dead! copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Probably not an awn work (United World Wrestling watermark). VateGV ◦ taper la discut’ ◦ 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry, A selfie, Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry, not useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above; badly blurred, poor quality, dubious source, unused in article space. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Suhayl091 (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In use in es:Éxodo Jujeño Tm (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm, unless a suitable substitution can be made in the article in question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. Some blur, but usable. In use; no superior substitute identifed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lainsbury Press
[edit]Skeevy fake period art uploaded by sockpuppet. We have authentic representations of historical erotica covers, why do we need this?
Dronebogus (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There are better photos of this incompletely recorded painting by Mattia Preti:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mattia_Preti,_Predica_di_San_Giovanni_Battista,_The_Fine_Arts_Museum,_San_Francisco.jpg
no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Feyth (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует лицензия Dot YU (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by courtesy, not in use. --Achim55 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this redirect. --Achim55 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Broken redirect. --Achim55 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Der Urheber des Werks, der Maler Herbert Duttler, will die Lizenz zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes auf Wikipedia erteilen.
- Ich blicke allerdings nicht durch, auf welchem Wege dies passieren kann. Muss er einen Brief unterschreiben, oder wie ist hier die Vorgehensweise? Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kunstsammler2905: Das geht per E-Mail. Siehe COM:VRT (bzw. auf Deutsch: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/de) zum weiteren Vorgehen; einen Muster-Text gibt es unter Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen#Einverständniserklärung_(Rechte-Inhaber). --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die Antwort. Der Künstler hat die Lizenz jetzt an die entsprechende Adresse gemailt. Wie kann man die geplante Löschnung bei diesem Bild wieder stornieren? Es sind ja jetzt alle rechtlichen Dinge konform. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Da ist Abwarten angesagt, die E-Mail-Genehmigung muss erst noch bearbeitet und bestätigt werden. Die Datei habe ich mit der Vorlage Template:Permission pending versehen, damit ist erst einmal 30 Tage Zeit. --Rosenzweig τ 04:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die Antwort. Der Künstler hat die Lizenz jetzt an die entsprechende Adresse gemailt. Wie kann man die geplante Löschnung bei diesem Bild wieder stornieren? Es sind ja jetzt alle rechtlichen Dinge konform. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kunstsammler2905: Das geht per E-Mail. Siehe COM:VRT (bzw. auf Deutsch: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/de) zum weiteren Vorgehen; einen Muster-Text gibt es unter Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen#Einverständniserklärung_(Rechte-Inhaber). --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: file has aVRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 13:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Подложная лицензия. Отсутствие источника фото не позволяет подтвердить или опровергнуть принадлежность фотографии Наталье Назаровой. Jim Hokins (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Это скриншот из фильма Любимая женщина механика Гаврилова [1]. --ManFromNord (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Тогда это быстрое. Как и все загрузки участника Музыч. Lesless (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Elşad İman
[edit]Out of COM:PS, used by a previously locked user. Although we have permission for the category's files, these two picturing a minor should not be kept. Please also see the previous discussion and consider the deletion of the third file.
Bencemac (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep My account was mistakenly blocked and now I'm not blocked please stop the discussion, it's not right to delete copyrighted images. Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Ankry, please end the discussion, there is no reason for its deletion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The 2nd image is used on azwiki significant contributor user page, so definitely in scope. The 1st one probably as well. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Dear colleague Yann, please conclude.-- Elshad Imanverified
19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Dear colleague Yann, please conclude.-- Elshad Imanverified
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Wonderful work; I hope that the uploader has kept the data. Please consider re-creating this with a different basemap, like OSM or Wikimaps. - Because this is a GoogleMaps CopyVio. Enyavar (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright issue. deleted before here. Miha2020 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete source indicates non free license. --Askeuhd (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright issue. they are not agency news's exclusive photos (they only published them) Miha2020 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete even the source mentions All Rights Reserved. It's a clear copyvio. --Askeuhd (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Infrogmation. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Copied from https://ravimed.com.pl/produkty-lecznicze/ with false license. On the page there is All Rights Reserved copyright information without any other info about possible reusing. Also these files may have similar problems (some were copied from the site, for some the source is unknown → COM:PRP).
- File:IZAS box front 2.png
- File:IZAS-05 - autostrzykawki.jpg
- File:Autostrzykawka Morfina.jpg
- File:IZAS-05 - box back.jpg
- File:IZAS-05 - box front.jpg
Wostr (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
In progress There is a possibility that permission will be sent to VRT soon.- The same day I started this deletion request, I got an e-mail from the uploader in which he stated that he has rights to these files and asked what should be done to prove that. I replied with an information about CC licence and terms of this licence, I also gave details on how to send a message to VRT. I did not get any information that this mail has been sent. Wostr (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alfonse_Van_Besten.jpg){kind=link}
_df._Anna_STRATAN_(KAZ)2_-1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_2._April_2011,_Hilden.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Alfonse_Van_Besten.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Alfonse_Van_Besten.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_df._Anna_STRATAN_(KAZ)2_-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_df._Anna_STRATAN_(KAZ)2_-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am Robert Epstein's assisstant and he does not want this photo to be a part of his wikipedia page. Please delete. Tpixsf (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- What is the specific concern with the photo? NOLA1982 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- He does not like this picture and wants it taken down, please delete. 2603:8000:FE07:BC4B:5C89:EA40:DD3F:4BEA 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- He does not like this picture and wants it taken down, please delete. Tpixsf (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- He does not like this picture and wants it taken down, please delete. 2603:8000:FE07:BC4B:5C89:EA40:DD3F:4BEA 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Сайт Росконгресса не разрешает по свободным лицензиям брать файлы. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- День добрый. Тогда мне нужны пояснения. Я не силён в системах лицензирования, но мне казалось, что если файл помещён в фотобанк и если единственным условием использования (а других я у Росконгресса не нашёл) является "Ссылка на правообладателя – Фонд Росконгресс – обязательна" - то это и есть приглашение к свободному использованию, разве нет? Я был бы очень признателен за развернутые и аргументированные разъяснения. И если нельзя использовать это конкретное изображение под уже предложенной лицензией - есть ли возможность использовать его как-нибудь иначе, на других основаниях? Большое спасибо - и успехов! Vesan99 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Правила Викисклада не разрешают загружать фотографии с сайтов, защищённых авторских правом и запрещающих использование материалов в коммерческих целях. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Tùrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
ich wollte diese Datei eigentlich für einen Fotowettbewerb - kann jedoch diese Datei dafür nicht nutzen (????). Die Angelegenheit ist inzwischen Hinfällig, da die Einreichung für den Fotowettbewerb zwischenzeitlich abgelaufen ist. D. h. die Datei kann bleiben. g.orzel (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 20:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
File contains nothing educational other than raw text, out of scope as excluded educational content. 86.20.40.65 08:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 20:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ticket:2022080310007208 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 05:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Blurred photo of Luca di Tommè's painting, of which there is a better shot:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luca_di_tomm%C3%A8,_crocifissione,_1365_ca..JPG
unusable, out of scope. Feyth (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently, it's a logo for en:Marks & Spencer. It was removed from English Wikipedia's article because it "has been nominated for deletion", but "nonsense" isn't a sufficient reason. The license is wrong, however, this is {{PD-textlogo}}, will change it. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing nonsensical about this, it's a logo of en:Marks & Spencer. License template is wrong, though, should be {{PD-textlogo}}, will fix this. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo, auch bei diesem Bild handelt es sich um ein von mir erstelltes Foto, das ich von einem Gemälde in meinem eigenen Besitz gemacht habe. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Zustimmung ist vorhanden. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Bitte auch daran denken, dass es nicht einfach nur um "Zustimmung für Veröffentlichung auf Wikipedia" geht. Es geht um die Zustimmung zur Lizenzierung unter Creative-Commons-Lizenz. Das ist eine sehr umfassende Lizenz. Es empfiehlt sich, vorab das Kleingedruckte wirklich zu lesen. --217.239.10.163 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: File was already deleted. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Theartcenter (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious copyright status. One work by Mei Shi, one incorporating a work by Mei Shi, one by Mainmast Brand Design.
Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfree file. Загребин Илья (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Это авторская работа, на которую имеются все права. Alexei Lorentsson (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Впрочем, раз это изображение заподозрено в чем бы то ни было, я готов его убрать, но не знаю, как это сделать. Alexei Lorentsson (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. No EXIF. All images can be found on different websites previously published. Uploader already have some deleted copyvios.
- File:Gradski Stadium Pljevlja.jpg
- File:Power Station Pljevlja.jpg
- File:Opština Pljevlja.png
- File:Stražica.jpg
- File:Park Vodice 2.jpg
- File:Husein Pasa Mosque Pljevlja.jpg
- File:Coat of Arms of Pljevlja.png
Smooth O (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствуют лицензия и метаданные Dot YU (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- This file was a redirect, until you removed its content. So, all "rationales" which you have written above, are just the result of your own action. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: nothing links to this file and file name isn't useful. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danyalnasseri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Product shots which exist elsewhere online, such as https://lasertag.ir/product/%d8%a8%d9%85%d8%a8-%d9%84%db%8c%d8%b2%d8%b1%d8%aa%da%af-explosive-device-simulator/
- File:Explosive Device Simulator.jpg
- File:Smart RGB Headband.jpg
- File:Tactical Vest.jpg
- File:Hornet Special Edition.jpg
- File:AK-12LT.jpg
- File:MP9-LT Phoenix.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Диаграмма сетчатая точки - Может быть примером векторного и топологического пространства.svg
[edit]
Отсутствует лицензия 128.70.64.4 09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует лицензия 128.70.64.4 09:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствуют метаданные Dot YU (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
low quality, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
low quality, no proper description, no category, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует категория. Отзыв. Dot YU (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории.Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствуют метаданные Dot YU (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Dot YU (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствие категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует описание Dot YU (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствует метаданные Dot YU (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Отсутствует описание. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Отсутствуют описание и категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Отсутствуют описание и категории. Отзыв Dot YU (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Unused image of a non-notable company (ro:Homelux). Gikü (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Image created by a banned user, possibly uploaded by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Also, educationally worthless, poor quality and redundant. AshFriday (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Converted to mass DR, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files AshFriday doesn't like. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
OOS fake book uploaded by creator sock, modern pedophiliac imagery of no historical value, in use but possibly added by sockpuppet of creator Dronebogus (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
copyright issue.Watermark in the photo. Miha2020 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an image of Charles Carrol of Carrolton by Michael Laty (after Robert Field) hangs in the Museum of the Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore, Maryland.. Through the mislabelling in Wikimedia Commons its als spread on the Internet as a painting of Hercules Mulligan. 213.141.66.104 14:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Delete without redirect: Not a bad faith upload but misidentified because of https://www.tvhs.org/post/hercules-mulligan-immigrant-tailor-haberdasher-spy. Not in use & dupe of File:Charles Carroll of Carrollton - Michael Laty.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Question Can't the file just be renamed, with the description edited accordingly? Why is it best to delete the file? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Its a duplicate and we already have a much better version. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree; the other one is bigger and therefore more useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to act on this? 213.141.66.104 22:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree; the other one is bigger and therefore more useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Author is zh:丰子恺, die in 1975, not cc license shizhao (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyviol from https://www.diocesimonreale.it/ordinazione-episcopale-e-inizio-del-ministero-pastorale-di-s-e-mons-gualtiero-isacchi/ . Antonio1952 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 17:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The artist apparently still is alive, so he would definitely have to give his consent for a Creative Commons license. --217.239.10.163 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Herbert Duttler is alive, so his works are copyrighted. --Kadı Message 17:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Copy right issue Shahin (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- This file is not a problem in terms of copyright. It seems that the copyright and license are completely correct. A copy of this file is available on the reference site with copyright permission. (Attribution 4.0 International) Mahan Matin (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY at source. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rohalamin as Dw no source since (dw no source since). Appears to be a freedom of panorama case; FOP cases should be dealt in deletion requests as per COM:CSD#F3. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- As there is no usable FoP in Iran, the file should be deleted unless it can be shown that the statue is out of copyright. This also applies to the other entries of Category:Art of Khormoj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix QW (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Freedom of panorama does not cover 3D artwork —Bagumba (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Because it is Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Its a telefone icon. GeorgHH • talk 07:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Scan from photo shizhao (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Ninoy Aquino Monument, by Peter de Guzman
[edit]The Ninoy Aquino Monument constitutes the most essential element of these two images. The work depicts a political figure who died in 1983, and according to the website of Ayala Triangle, was designed by Peter Tiamzon de Guzman (who is apparently still alive as per this blog article).
Regrettably, House Bill 8620 by former Rep. Wes Gatchalian, amending Republic Act 8293 (IP Code of the Philippines) and containing the freedom of panorama provision for the Philippines, did not pass and the bill died while pending at the House of Representatives upon the end of 18th Congress last month. The universal global rule of securing commercial Creative Commons clearance from the architects, sculptors, or muralists still applies.
It is yet to be seen if the bill will be resurrected this newly-commenced 19th Congress of the Philippines.
- File:Ninoy Aquino Monument, Ayala Avenue, Makati City 2019.jpg
- File:Ninoy Aquino Monument during Leni-Kiko MDA at Ayala Avenue, Makati City (May 2022).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image that wouldn't use in article, and I am the author wish to delete this *angys* (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Useless image. --Kadı Message 18:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Watermark in the photo: Kapanlagi.com, not creative commons, copyright Urang Kamang (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
a picture of an unknown author cannot be pd-old-70, also the derative (cropped) versions Goesseln (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it could be, this was Germany in 1929, in the Jewish community. The author, who would clearly be deceased now, is quite likely to have died before 1952 (70 years ago) and never came forward to claim ownership. So who, exactly, would the copywrite belong to? Perhaps the issue is simply that a different tag should have been used? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, life expectancy from birth in the general German population in 1929 was 58. For someone aged 20 or older in 1929 it was 42 years of age or less. For the Jewish population, in which mortality was much higher from 1933 onwards, the figure is a lot less, though difficult to quantitate exactly. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the photographer was still alive in 1952. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the collection states explicitly "Copyright in Hannah Arendt’s unpublished papers in this Collection has been dedicated to the public". --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- In the absence of any further arguments from the nomination, I propose this discussion be closed with the conclusion - “keep”. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the collection states explicitly "Copyright in Hannah Arendt’s unpublished papers in this Collection has been dedicated to the public". --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Incidentally, life expectancy from birth in the general German population in 1929 was 58. For someone aged 20 or older in 1929 it was 42 years of age or less. For the Jewish population, in which mortality was much higher from 1933 onwards, the figure is a lot less, though difficult to quantitate exactly. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the photographer was still alive in 1952. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image that wouldn't use in article, and I am the author wish to delete this *angys* (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia, "a simple result (consisting of simple geometric shapes and / or text) of a creative work (creative human activity) is copyrightable" in the country. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is not allowed under TOO Russia. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of date of publication, place of publication, or author. No evidence that the image is free to use (or that it even is what it claims to be). The link provided is not reliable and doesn't offer any further help or evidence either. Ypatch (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. All information is available in description. The source is an archive website founded by two renowned Iranian left activists and intellectuals (Torab Haghshenas and Pouran Bazargan) but the nominator did not explain the reason for his claim. The file is a copy of a leaflet distributed in Tehran more than 40 years ago (in December 1975).
It is in public domain because:
- Such text is not protected by Iranian law at all (per [2]).
- It was made available to the public +30 years ago and rights belonged to the organization (a legal person).
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=659266053#File:Letter_from_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran_to_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union.jpg){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note. Please be advised that the nominator has nominated four other unrelated files within minutes all by copy/pasting the same text (1-2-3-4). They have also reported this file for "vandalism" before (here) and an admin said that "the report seems to be politically motivated". [3] It seems to me that they are determined to delete every file about this group whatever the reason. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The image is hosted at political opposition website. Despite protests by HeminKurdistan (the uploader), no evidence of author or place of publication has been provided (from a reliable source at least). Ypatch (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Your own political stance, whether it is position or opposition, is an invalid reason for deletion of files and you should bring your political concern elsewhere. This file is in public domain because it was made publicly available in Iran more than 30 years ago [4]. HeminKurdistan (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The document was published in 1975 in Iran and entered the public domain in 2005. Streamline8988 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Hemin. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of date of publication, place of publication, or author. No evidence that the image is free to use (or that it's even what it claims to be). The link provided is not reliable and doesn't offer any further help or evidence either. Ypatch (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. All information is available in description and the nominator fails to explain the justification behind casting unreasonable doubt on them. It is cover page of a propaganda leaflet distributed in Tehran more than 40 years ago (on 1 September 1976). The source is an archive website founded by two renowned Iranian left activists and intellectuals (Torab Haghshenas and Pouran Bazargan) who were personally involved in this leaflet.
This file is in public domain because:
- Such text is not protected by Iranian law at all (per [5]).
- It was made available to the public +30 years ago and rights belonged to the organization (a legal person).
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note. Please be advised that the nominator has nominated four other unrelated files within minutes all by copy/pasting the same text (1-2-3-4). They have also reported this file for "vandalism" before (here) and an admin said that "the report seems to be politically motivated". [6] It seems to me that they are determined to delete every file about this group whatever the reason. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The image is hosted at political opposition website. Despite protests by HeminKurdistan (the uploader), no proper evidence of author or place of publication has been provided (from a reliable source at least). Ypatch (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- You should bring your political concern elsewhere because here we talk about copyright. This file is in public domain because it was made publicly available in Iran more than 30 years ago [7]. HeminKurdistan (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The file falls below the threshhold of originality in Iran for the reasons given in [8], so it was never subject to copyright at all, and even if it did copyright expired in 2005. Streamline8988 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of date of publication, place of publication, or author. No evidence that the image is free to use (or that it's even what it claims to be). The link provided is not reliable and doesn't offer any further help or evidence either. Ypatch (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of date of publication, place of publication, or author. No evidence that the image is free to use (or that it's even what it claims to be). The link provided is not reliable and doesn't offer any further help or evidence either. Ypatch (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion. Solomon203 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Suhayl091 Yes, "Because it is Nonsense" this deletion request Keep Tm (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Suhayl091 Yes, "Because it is Nonsense" this deletion request
- Comment Completely valid image, except if it can't be hosted here because cosplay of copyrighted characters violates copyright. Does it? And Suhayl091, "because it is nonsense" is not a very informative deletion reason. If you could try to specify what the problem is, that would help everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Less concerned with the cosplay than I am with the giant copyrighted backdrop. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per IronGargoyle. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Songs, Poems and Revolutionary Marches of the People's Mujahedin of Iran - Serie 4 (Front Cover).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence of date of publication, place of publication, or author. No evidence that the image is free to use. The link provided is not reliable and doesn't offer any further help or evidence either. Ypatch (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. All information is available in File:Songs, Poems and Revolutionary Marches of the People's Mujahedin of Iran - Serie 4 (Front Cover).jpg#Summary and the nominator fails to explain the justification behind casting unreasonable doubt on them. This is cover of an Iranian cassette tape album published in 1979/1980 and rights were owned by a legal person for 30 years and it is in public domain now. [9]. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note. Please be advised that the nominator has nominated four other unrelated files within minutes all by copy/pasting the same text (1-2-3-4). They have also reported this file for "vandalism" before (here) and an admin said that "the report seems to be politically motivated". [10] It seems to me that they are determined to delete every file about this group whatever the reason. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The image is hosted at propaganda website. Despite protests by HeminKurdistan (the uploader), no evidence of author or place of publication has been provided (from a reliable source at least). Ypatch (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg#Summary){kind=link}
- High quality version of this file is on sale in alamy.com [11] and worldcat.org link above proves publication in Iran more than 30 years ago. You should bring your political concerns elsewhere. HeminKurdistan (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Image created by a banned user, possibly uploaded by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Also, educationally worthless, poor quality and redundant. AshFriday (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Converted to mass DR, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files AshFriday doesn't like. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Fake book cover uploaded by sockpuppet as a gratuitously pedophiliac alternative to actual historical erotic fiction covers, which we have. In use but possibly added by uploader and often blatantly unneeded (i.e. no caption, added to an already cluttered page, unclear illustrative purpose etc.) Dronebogus (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this was flawed. The admin who closed it off simply closed by stating {{PD-ineligible}} without any rationale. Arguments presented in the discussion ranged from "we need it", "all flags should be marked PD" (regardless of laws), to "there is no original authorship". Looking at the flag there is obviously original authorship, whihc is a combination of Arabic text intertwined with what is clear "artwork". Unless someone is able to arrange with Hezbollah for the release of this flag under a suitable licence, it should be deleted from commons. Also, if anyone is going to claim that it is PD-ineligible, in that it has no original authorship, they will need to present evidence of this in both the US and the country of origin, rather than simply stating it is ineligible with no reasoning behind it. Sandstein's comments in the original discussion were spot on the mark. russavia (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- NOTE: File:CoA of Hezbollah.png is a derivative of this file, so if consensus is that the flag file should be deleted, then the derivative file would also need to go. But of course I would ask that a little time be given in order for local projects to hold onto these files (with reduced size) in order for them to be used inline with local project NFCC criteria. --russavia (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would have to say, this certainly does not look ineligible under grounds of text or simple shapes. While I'm no expert on arabic, I'm pretty certain an AK47 is not one of the letters of their alephbet. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick note: I agree that the closure was flawed and a new request should be held in which the closing admin should provide a rationale at its closure :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I was the original nominator and was advised by Russavia of this discussion. The work patently passes any reasonable threshold of originality: it does not consist only of public domain shapes composed in a non-creative manner. Accordingly, it is subject to copyright. Sandstein (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- (The fact that you kind of got on people's nerves a little during the last deletion discussion might possibly have had an influence on why the image was not deleted then.) I still wonder what is the difference between the Hezbollah flag and a number of national flags which are copyright-protected in their home countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags would that be? Sandstein (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags they would be are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is centred only on this file (and its derivative file), so it would be great if editors didn't get sidetracked on issues which are not relevant to the discussion of this file. However, having said that, and albeit briefly, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of ASEAN.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of NATO.svg are relevant. Also AnonMoos, the mere fact that Sandstein nominated the file for deletion, and with more than valid reasoning, is not reason to tell him that he got on people's nerves and that he might have been responsible for it being kept. For whatever reason it was kept, I doubt very much Sandstein's valid reasoning was responsible. --russavia (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which flags would that be? Sandstein (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- (The fact that you kind of got on people's nerves a little during the last deletion discussion might possibly have had an influence on why the image was not deleted then.) I still wonder what is the difference between the Hezbollah flag and a number of national flags which are copyright-protected in their home countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hezbolla has a press office (somewhere) if we may ask there under wich conditions it's allowed to use their flag.--Sanandros (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor was to contact Hezbollah and get explicit permission to have their logo/flag licenced under a free licence, I would withdraw the nomination if it was successful. Their permission would need to state which licence, and also a statement that they understand it can be used commercially and modified at will (or at the very least have this explained to them in the request). --russavia (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is somebody of the Portal:Mid East here? Maybe the could help us to get a contact to Hezbolla.--Sanandros (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The best place to find someone would likely be on either enwp or arwp in portals or wikiprojects. --russavia (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is somebody of the Portal:Mid East here? Maybe the could help us to get a contact to Hezbolla.--Sanandros (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor was to contact Hezbollah and get explicit permission to have their logo/flag licenced under a free licence, I would withdraw the nomination if it was successful. Their permission would need to state which licence, and also a statement that they understand it can be used commercially and modified at will (or at the very least have this explained to them in the request). --russavia (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Whilethe previous discussion may have been flawed, we still must consider that a) the flag is majority-text, and b) the shape of the AK47 and other designs are all simple enough that they should fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. There has been general consensus to keep flags of countries, regardless of copyright status in those countries, and I see no reason why the flag of a political party should be much different. Furthermore, considering that we don't know who designed the flag, it's equally impossible to determine who, if anyone, is the copyright holder. While my understanding of copyright is undoubtedly flawed, I believe that this should in some way qualify it as being PD as an anonymous work. Mnmazur (talk)
- Not afaik, more likely we would be required to wait until 50yrs or so after publication. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization. It cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if "Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist organization" under any law relevant to Wikipedia Commons, I'm not aware how that would have any bearing on the organization's or its members' capacity to hold copyright under U.S. copyright law. Even criminals can own property, intellectual or otherwise. Sandstein (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless Hezbollah is a legally-recognized person under the law (i.e. a corporation or such other creature of statute with similar rights), then it cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were, afaik, voted in as the legitimate Palestinian government. I think that qualifies. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's Hamas, not Hezbollah. Lexicon (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- But they where voted in the Lebanise parliament--Sanandros (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, my bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- If copyright in this flag is not held by Hezbollah, the organization, then it is held by whichever person(s) designed the flag. At any rate, somebody holds the copyright, and whether or not they are terrorists does not matter for purposes of copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if that's actually the case, given all the new US anti-terrorism legislation (which I assume somewhere addresses property of terrorist organizations). I unfortunately, however, don't have the time to properly research the matter. Lexicon (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- If copyright in this flag is not held by Hezbollah, the organization, then it is held by whichever person(s) designed the flag. At any rate, somebody holds the copyright, and whether or not they are terrorists does not matter for purposes of copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, my bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- But they where voted in the Lebanise parliament--Sanandros (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's Hamas, not Hezbollah. Lexicon (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were, afaik, voted in as the legitimate Palestinian government. I think that qualifies. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless Hezbollah is a legally-recognized person under the law (i.e. a corporation or such other creature of statute with similar rights), then it cannot hold copyright. Lexicon (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Clearly passes the threshold of originality. Someone owns the copyright. He may not be a very nice person. In all probability he was assassinated by Mossad years ago. But it's not Public Domain, and it's not licensed in a way that we can use it. Buddy431 (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Regardless of political orientation, this was most likely designed by an artist living and working in a country with no copyright laws. Any such artist has no reason to consider any of his works to be protected by other laws, whilst producing in them a country that does not recognise the need to protect artistic endeavour legally, because they view the fruits of these labours as expressions of God to be shared with the masses. --thejake
Both File:Flag_of_Hezbollah.svg and File:CoA of Hezbollah.png are deleted. The image on the flag exceeds the threshhold of originality (i.e. the drawing of a hand holding assault rifle is by no means common property and does contain original authorship). Lebanon has copyright laws (see Template:PD-Lebanon) and nobody provided any arguments, why Hezbollah flag or logo are exempt from copyright. Since both files are in use on multiple pages in local wikis I will give a day or two to reupload the files in local wikis. Then I'll delete them. Blacklake (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This logo has apparently a complicated history of being kept and being deleted in various deletion discussions, but I see that after being kept once in early 2007, it was deleted three times in late 2007, 2010 and 2011. So it should probably be deleted again? FWIW, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon does not mention any exceptions for logos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Someone had uploaded a Hezbollah flag over a simplified version that was own work of the uploader. Please be notified that I reverted the change per Commons:Overwriting existing files. Regards HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion above. --Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Own work? See here. No metadata. Wouter (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
DW of old photos taken with an iPhone. Archer died in 1970, can't be own work in 2021. May be PD but need more info. All these photos need OTRS or PD information
- File:International Council for the Exploration of the Sea President Walter Archer.jpg
- File:Sage and Sagette on Edirene.jpg
- File:Walter Archer and family.jpg
- File:Norman Archer rows as a boy.jpg
- File:Norman Archer at Osborne College.jpg
- File:Norman Archer in uniform.jpg
- File:Norman Archer.jpg
- File:Prince Charles, Robert Blackburn and the Lord Mountbatten.jpg
- File:Robert Blackburn with Atlantic College Students.jpg
- File:Robert Blackburn with students.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep the following as PD-UK-unknown
[edit]The cutoff is 1952. Judging from the absence of Hugh Edward Murray Archer (1879-1930) from the family portrait, I suspect he was the family photographer, except for the one image of him, probably taken with his camera by another family member. --RAN (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- File:International Council for the Exploration of the Sea President Walter Archer.jpg
- File:Sage and Sagette on Edirene.jpg
- File:Walter Archer and family.jpg
- File:Norman Archer rows as a boy.jpg
- File:Norman Archer at Osborne College.jpg
- File:Norman Archer in uniform.jpg
- File:Norman Archer.jpg
Delete the following
[edit]These appear to be after the 1952 cutoff:
- Prince Charles, Robert Blackburn and the Lord Mountbatten.jpg2,514 × 1,595; 959 KB
- Robert Blackburn with Atlantic College Students.jpg1,177 × 900; 232 KB
- Robert Blackburn with students.jpg
I'm going to see if I can't track down the original source for these three, and ascertain their copyright status there. Dotx3 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I will keep working on the other set, adding categories and links to Wikidata. See: File:Walter Archer and family.jpg. --RAN (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Kept first seven per RAN (PD-UK-unknown), deleted last three which were more recent. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ian Bradley
[edit]File:Reverend Doctor Ian Bradley.jpg is credited to "Graduation photos" and is similar to https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/people/icb/. The other is claimed as own work but that can't be right as they are the same photo. Neither have meaningful exif. Both need OTRS. Also Category:Ian Bradley as this will be empty
Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David notMD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern artworks. Need permission from the sculptor Susan Aaron-Taylor via COM:VRT.
- File:Susan Aaron-Taylor sculpture Soul Shard -27.jpg
- File:Susan Aaron-Taylor sculpture Soul Shard -26.jpg
- File:Susan Aaron-Taylor sculpture Endangered Black Footed Ferret.jpg
- File:Susan Aaron-Taylor sculpture Endangered African Wild Painted Dog No. 2.jpg
- File:Susan Aaron-Taylor sculpture "Crystal Woman".jpg
howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I will contact Susan Aaron-Taylor to see if she will give permission for use of my photographs of her work. I will make clear to her that this would mean that anyone could then use the images. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence of permission. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Freedom of panorama does not cover 3D artwork —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
- Why didn't you nominate File:Students and police officer at rally next to Bill Russell statue at Boston City Hall 144420582.jpg? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
This tour is by William Beverley 1848 and is not by Euler. The title at least should be changed. See http://www.mayhematics.com/t/1d.htm Gpjelliss (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Leonhard Euler developed the mathematics of describing knight's tours in the mid 1700s that led to algorithms and similar developments by people like H. C. von Warnsdorf and William Beverley in the 1800s. It's called an Euler Knight Tour because it is based on the mathematics of Euler, not because he discovered it. I am incredulous that someone would request deletion of a file because they don't understand the name. And given all the options we have for moving files, I find it hard to take this nomination as being in good faith. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 19:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Addition: it turns out that the nominator made a talk page post at the uploader's talk page about this a month and a half ago. The uploader suggested asking at a wikipedia project page, which the nominator did not do. This might explain why they don't understand the file name, as the article itself delves into Euler's place in the history of Knight's tours. VanIsaac (en.wiki) 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Thanks, @Vanisaac: . When I replied to @Gpjelliss: , who also goes by the username @GPJ: , I did not know who discovered it, but a brief search in Google Books showed at least a few authors recognising Euler as the discoverer. Even if not, incorrect attribution is not unknown in mathematics.
- Moreover, deletion isn't the appropriate response to an incorrect title: where the name is obviously wrong, on the file description page, under More, select Move and propose a new name. In this case, renaming isn't uncontentious, so I'd suggest first getting consensus. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, this is not the right venue for requesting a name change and it is not clear that there is consensus for a name change. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Нарушение условия лицензии: указанный автор умер в 1987 году Wasa Kawasaker (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Needs more research. Looks like the photograph was published anonymously in 1939, as the property of «Pravda» newspaper. The author's name was not known for dozens of years. This means, the image became a public domain image. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Published with the author's name in «Pravda» newspaper, from September 17, 1938. Still covered by copyright of «Pravda» newspaper, needs license from the newspaper. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Let us try to get a license from that newspaper. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo, ich habe eine Meldung, dass meine Bilddatei zur Löschung vorgemerkt wird. WEshalb? Es handelt sich um ein Bild, das ich von meinem Gemälde, das ich besitze, gemacht habe. Bin irritiert Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo, auch bei diesem Bild handelt es sich um ein von mir erstelltes Foto, das ich von einem Gemälde in meinem eigenen Besitz gemacht habe. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo, auch bei diesem Bild handelt es sich um ein von mir erstelltes Foto, das ich von einem Gemälde in meinem eigenen Besitz gemacht habe. Kunstsammler2905 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- So ist es. Ein "eigenes Foto" von diesem Werk hat keine ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe, als dass der Fotograf von "seinem Werk" sprechen dürfte. --217.239.10.163 22:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Die Urheberrechte (eines Bildes oder anderen Werkes) sind nicht übertragbar, sondern bleiben beim Urheber (z.B. Maler, Fotografen) und gehen nach dessen Ableben an die Erben des Urhebers. Es bräuchte hier die Zustimmung des Urhebers zur Veröffentlichung. Siehe auch de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte --M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Porque no lo estoy usando Felinardo1 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Porque no lo estoy usando Felinardo1 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Suhayl091 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly not a selfie. The question is whether the depicted person is at all notable. Also, this might be a newspaper scan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal photograph without indication of importance. Malcolma (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Read this in The Hindu, a reputable Indian English-language newspaper:
- September 09, 2014 23:50 IST
- "T.N. Suresh Kumar, a senior scientist working with the ISRO’s Master Control Facility in Hassan, has become the first Indian to visit the stratosphere – the second layer of the Earth’s atmosphere.
- He made it to an altitude of 17,100 metres on August 15 in a MIG-29 from Sokol Airbase near Nizhny Novgorod in Russia paying a hefty fee of around Rs. 15 lakh from his savings."
- There is more coverage in other well-known Indian English-language publications. It would be good for more information to be added to the file description, but this file should not be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Nonsense -- some business jets fly as high as 17,000 meters, and the Concorde flew at 18,300 meters, so there's nothing notable here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
no description, no source, no originator Mef.ellingen (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not allow Google to update the logo in Google search for TUVISA Euskalkoli (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Google search results are not reasons for deletions on this site. My only question, since this file is in use, is whether it violates copyright in some way, and the category "unidentified logos" is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Threshold of originality. This is a simple logo with only text and basic circles. Change license to {{PD-textlogo}}. Royalbroil 04:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
See Description. This is the same file as OmegaCMaLightCurve.png but with the wrong name. Hobbema (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Adam Styka zm. 1959 Paterm (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Porque tem pessoas na fotografia que não fazem mais parte da banda. Tiago Supertalamo (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Not for the reasons given, but because this is an image of a non-notable band used only in a promotional userspace draft. Out of project scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Porque no voy a usar esta imagen Felinardo1 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image from: https://www.techrum.vn/chevereto/images/2017/12/05/qeihx.jpg. This is actually from https://unsplash.com/photos/LI748t0BK8w. Unfortunately, it just says "Published 5 years ago", so I am unable to determine whether it predates 5 June 2017. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality and superseded by File:Sano di Pietro - Beheading of St John the Baptist - WGA20765.jpg. Note: this image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Overall quality may be lower, specially levels, but the resolution is higher... I would Keep both--Sailko (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Give up the low quality of the image in exchange for its high resolution. --Javidd (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
