Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/08/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
I am the uploader of this photo requesting deletion myself. Lefjag (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: , per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Загружено по ошибке Hdjjdejndn (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
fausse manip, image non libre de droits d'auteur (Gruppe C) LoupDragon42 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adamant1 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G7 Yann (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: I had requested speedy deletion because I accidently uploaded it before I cropped the black part from the bottom of the image and I was going to upload a new version it after it was G7ed. Turning it into a regular deletion request is just pointlessly obtuse since now I have to wait the month or however long it takes for this to go through the system before I can upload the correct file. Can you just delete it please? There's zero reason I shouldn't be able to have the image speedy deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
image used only by spam page deleted off enwiki in 2011 DS (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- this AFD right here, in fact. Also note who uploaded the image. DS (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Used for self promo on en.wp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as "nothing educational other than raw text". Lord Belbury (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album —MdsShakil (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry, bad quality HerrAdams (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blurry image Thyj (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
COM:OOS: Looks like a screenshot of a Tiktok video. Thyj (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Simply nudity image, out of scope 219.78.191.191 16:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete Low quality COM:PORN--A1Cafel (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Title indicates "high school girl", which implies a possibility of child pornography 219.78.191.191 16:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete Obvious child pornography, "high school girl" is likely under 18. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, self-promotion JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:MatinGong
[edit]- File:Gong matin1.jpg
- File:Gong matin2.jpg
- File:Gong matin3.jpg
- File:Gong matin4.jpg
- File:Gong matin5.jpg
- File:Gong matin6.jpg
- File:Gong matin7.jpg
Cross-wiki self-promotional spam --JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo without education use Drakosh (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 18:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 18:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 18:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
orphan image, not useful, poor quality, probably uploaded for personal purposes, not useful for the project ZioNicco (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
orphan image, not useful, poor quality, probably uploaded for personal purposes, not useful for the project ZioNicco (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
orphan image, not useful, poor quality, probably uploaded for personal purposes, not useful for the project ZioNicco (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
orphan image, not useful, poor quality, probably uploaded for personal purposes, not useful for the project ZioNicco (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Usage of Commons as personal space: Diploma CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture of a flyer CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Usage of Commons as personnal space: Thesis CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian- Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 23:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Software screenshot CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: TinEye found this image in 2010. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Found on the internet in 2012 according to TinEye http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--4h86Yapbuo/TsFwPWxxVnI/AAAAAAAAEMI/N2xISQfei-4/s72-c/convivencia_blog.jpg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Found in 2008 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a video game CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot from TV CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 07:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TourismPhilippines (talk · contribs)
[edit]This user has uploaded many photos by different photographers. If, as claimed, this user represents an official tourism board who has obtained authorization from the respective photographers, they will need to contact COM:VRT to establish their authorization.
- File:SaGuijo Bar, Makati, 2015 by Justin Ventura.jpg
- File:Solaire Resort Casino, Parañaque, 2015 by Justin Ventura.jpg
- File:Abe Restaurant, Taguig, 2015 by Justin Ventura.jpg
- File:Café Juanita, Pasig, 2015 by Justin Ventura.jpg
- File:The Manila Hotel, Manila, 2015 by Rommel Bundalian.jpg
- File:Ayala Museum, Makati, 2015 by Dakila Angeles (1).jpg
- File:Takayama Ukon, Manila Cathedral, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz.jpg
- File:San Agustin Church, Manila, 2015 by Erwin Lim.jpg
- File:Museo de Intramuros, Manila, 2019.jpg
- File:Museo de Intramuros, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz.jpg
- File:Museo de Intramuros, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz (1).jpg
- File:Metropolitan Museum of Manila, Manila, 2015 by Dakila Angeles.jpg
- File:Café Adriatico, Manila, 2015 from Best of the Best.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia (5).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia (4).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia (3).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia (1).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2017 by Ryan Kabigting.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2017 by Erwin Lim (2).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2017 by Erwin Lim.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2017 by Erwin Lim (1).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2015 by Francisco Guerrero.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia (2).jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2015 by Erwin Lim.jpg
- File:Intramuros, Manila, 2015 by Erwin Lim (1).jpg
- File:Carlos Celdran - Tour Guide, Intramuros, Manila, 2015 by Fracisco Guerrero.jpg
- File:Salcedo Weekend Market, Makati, 2015 by Justin Ventura.jpg
- File:Binondo Church, Manila, 2015 by Francisco Guerrero.jpg
- File:National Museum of Natural History, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz.jpg
- File:National Museum of Natural History, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz (3).jpg
- File:National Museum of Natural History, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz (2).jpg
- File:National Museum of Natural History, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz (1).jpg
- File:Manila Cathedral, Manila, 2019 by Jacob Maentz.jpg
- File:Fort Santiago, Intramuros, Manila, 2019, by Tribal DDB Southeast Asia.jpg
- File:Luneta Park, Manila, 2015 by Leah de Leon.jpg
- File:The Peninsula Manila, Makati, 2015 by Justin Ventura (1).jpg
- File:Bantay Abot Cave, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte 2.webp
- File:Bantay Abot Cave, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte 1.webp
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The file supposedly bears a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, but such a license cannot be found on the source website, and therefore it is assumed it is not free. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 18:23, 26 August 2022 UTC: per COM:SPEEDY --Krdbot 01:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Locality twice. the correct category is Category:San Juan Bautista, Peral de Arlanza.--Ulamm (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, bad name/redirect. --Strakhov (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Gallery page with no apparent purpose, containing some completely random chemical diagrams (it is unknown why these classes of compounds were chosen), since creation in 2009 it has never been edited or updated, except for technical edits. Just as with this deletion request, there are no reasons to keep this anymore. Wostr (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We don't need these abandoned gallery pages when we have categories for all structural classes. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Doublon de File:Custine - Aloys, ou le religieux du mont saint bernard, Vézard, 1829.djvu Cunegonde1 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Caricato per errore, doveva sostituire PV_Groscavallo_016. Jrachi (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Fvtvr3r (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
chybný obrázek Miloš Křivan (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
chybný obrázek Miloš Křivan (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The file, a picture of the first page of the sheet music, is a derivative work of the Symphony No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 82 (Q240296), a musical composition by Jean Sibelius (1865–1957; Q45682). The original work (the musical composition) is still under copyright and thus not in public domain until 2028-01-01. Apalsola t • c 01:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Although the original work (the musical composition) enters into public domain on 2028-01-01, the expression (the sheet music) may be copyrighted even after that date. ––Apalsola t • c 01:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)- Comment Unfortunately I have to agree. The file is still under copyright and will remain so until 2028-01-01. It is to be canceled.--Brunokito (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Described as "own work" but also says it's by someone named NotYourComrade—which is it? If the latter, where does the image have permission to use the stated Creative Commons license? czar 03:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unclear if uploader has authority to license, no evidence given that author has released under free license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Unknown source book cover Thyj (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Its a work of a still living artist: https://www.scrimshawgallery.com/product/the-omaha-the-arrival-of-the-omaha-at-the-sioux-city-landing/ Creuzbourg (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, not own work Yann (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also source and author are incorrect. --Drakosh (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably PD-textlogo in USA, but not sure about Russia. Yann (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
wrong name, duplicate of File:Coat of Arms of Hliník nad Hronom.svg Krumpi (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of this image and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original overwrite this FB-derived image, if the image is truly self-photographed work of the uploader. This is the only extant contribution of Faithful2470 (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Book cover. Copyright violation HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
'Field' book , The concern is two fold. 1 These are notes, and thus might not be 'published' in the sense other documents are. 2. To what extent are personal survey notes considered part of works undertaken by federal employees? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep As stated in the license: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The description reads: "This field book is a diary from 13 October 1928 to 14 February 1929 documenting Graham's field collecting trips to Li Chuang (currently Lizhuang), Yachow (currently Ya'an), Min River Valley north of Suifu (currently Yibin), and the Suifu vicinity. Graham provides a narrative description of daily activities including amounts and types of specimen he and associates collected or purchased. Graham collected mammals, birds, insects, snakes, fish, "water snails", fossils, and possibly other specimen. Mammal numbers range from 122-187; mammal skin numbers range from 127-130. Locations in which Graham collected include various localities near and including modern day Lizhuang, modern day Ya'an, Min River (a tributary of the upper Yangtze River), Chang Lin (Changling), and modern day Yibin. Graham often includes altitudes of localities where specimen were found. Descriptions of some specimen are occasionally provided. Graham also collects artifacts and conducts ethnological and anthropological research during this trip." Sounds pretty clear to me. Vysotsky (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per above, no publication is required to be PD, other than security clearances, for all "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". All presidential papers at their libraries are PD.
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Field book, The concerns are that these are not necessarily 'published' like other books, and that it's not clear how 'offical' the notes in these are. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As stated in the license: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The description reads: "This field book is a diary from 27 May to 12 October 1928 documenting Graham's field collecting trips in the vicinity of Suifu (currently Yibin). Notes from the summer collecting trip are not included here; see folder 6. Graham provides a narrative description of daily activities including amounts and types of specimen collected by him or associates. Graham notes mostly birds and mammals, although some mention of insects and reptiles are included. Mammal numbers range from 104-121. Locations in which Graham collected include various localities near modern day Yibin. Descriptions of some specimen are occasionally provided. Graham also makes ethnological and anthropological observations during this trip.". This sounds "officail" enough to me. As too 'published': the license quotes it as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". So that is covered too. Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Field book, The concerns are that these are not necessarily 'published' like other books, and that it's not clear how 'offical' the notes in these are. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As stated in the license: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The description reads: "This field book is a diary from 15 February to 13 June 1929 documenting Graham's field collecting trips to Kiating (currently Leshan), Pin Shan, and the Suifu (currently Yibin) vicinity. Graham provides a narrative description of daily activities including amounts and types of specimen he and associates collected or purchased. Graham collected mammals, birds, insects, salamanders, frogs, shrimp, fossils, and possibly other specimen. Mammal numbers range from 122-187. Locations in which Graham collected include various localities near and including modern day Leshan, Yibin, and Hongya. Descriptions of some specimens are occasionally provided. Graham also collects artifacts and conducts ethnological and anthropological research during this trip. No scientific names are provided". Sounds pretty official to me. As too 'published': the license quotes it as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". So yes, that is covered too. Vysotsky (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Book no. 10, H.A. Allard, field collection specimen no. 13000-14343 (IA Bookno10HAllardBookAlla).pdf
[edit]Field book, The concerns are that these are not necessarily 'published' like other books, and that it's not clear how 'offical' the notes in these are. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-USGov reads: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government", (my emphasis added) it doesn't mention that it needs to be published. Wouldn't this be better as a question at Village Pump instead of going straight for a deletion nomination? Sadly when the deletion queue gets longer than 6 months the temptation is to delete those that even have no comments. --RAN (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Field book, The concerns are that these are not necessarily 'published' like other books, and that it's not clear how 'offical' the notes in these are. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As stated in the license: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The description reads: "This field book is a diary from 14 November 1927 to 29 January 1928 documenting Graham's field collecting trips in the vicinity of Suifu (currently Yibin); trip to Kiating (currently Leshan). Graham collects birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles. Mammal numbers range from 7 to 45. Locations in which Graham collected include various localities near modern day Yibin and Leshan. Graham also makes ethnological observations during this trip. No scientific names are provided". Sounds convincing "official" enough. As to the 'publication' aspect: the license reads: "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government", so that should do the trick. Vysotsky (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Diary no. IV (4), July, 1928-August, 1928 - summer expedition to Ningyuenfu via Yachow (IA DiarynoIV4July14Grah).pdf
[edit]Field book, The concerns are that these are not necessarily 'published' like other books, and that it's not clear how 'offical' the notes in these are. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As stated in the license: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The description reads: "This field book is a diary from 4 July to 28 September 1928 documenting Graham's field collecting trip from Ningyuenfu (currently Xichang) via Yachow (currently Ya'an). Graham provides a narrative description of daily activities including amounts and types of specimen collected by him or associates. Graham collected birds, mammals, snakes, and insects. Mammal numbers range from 110-116. Locations in which Graham collected include various localities along the route to modern day Xichang via modern day Ya'an. Graham often includes altitudes of localities where specimen were found. Descriptions of some specimen are occasionally provided. Graham also conducts ethnological and anthropological research during this trip." Sounds pretty clear to me. Vysotsky (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This exposes direct messages sent to me, I have no idea why I uploaded such a screenshot. I'm replacing it with a better, more up to date one. Mkljczk (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Usage of Commons as personnal space: Patent CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: currently in use in article space. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is copyrighted by the Govt. of India (the certificate is issued by the Govt. of India). {{GODL-India}} only applies on files published with a URL, URI, or DOI. This is because according to this gazette notification, [t]he user must acknowledge the provider, source, and license of data by explicitly publishing the attribution statement,11 including the DOI (Digital Object Identifier), or the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or the URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) of the data concerned.. Failure to do so means the GODL is terminated per Section 7a of the Gazette notification. I haven't been able to find this exact document (Patent No. 206685) on the Indian Patent Office's website, so, unless it has been published with a URI, URL, or a DOI (most likely a URL), we need to delete. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't an actual patent, it is the certificate awarded a patent holder, it doesn't contain the details of the invention. I don't see it as eligible for a copyright. It is just boiler plate text that a patent has been awarded. --RAN (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are logos of Indian government agencies that may be above COM:TOO in India and there is a signature, and as far as I know, signatures are protected by copyright in India. GODL might cover both though if applicable. @Yann: Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- The logos of the Indian Govt have expired. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, the copyright has expired. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- The logos of the Indian Govt have expired. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are logos of Indian government agencies that may be above COM:TOO in India and there is a signature, and as far as I know, signatures are protected by copyright in India. GODL might cover both though if applicable. @Yann: Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence this file is in PD or falls in GODL-India. So it has to be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, we have better pictures for the subject at Category:Terminal de Autobuses Morelia Ske (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Low quality alone is not a valid reason for deletion. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not just low quality, but unusably bad, with no compensating uniqueness nor importance. Unused, uncat; no evident in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
probably copyright violation. wrong date etc. Xocolatl (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: created in 1970-ies, definitely not an own work. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Uploader is the person in the picture. Requires COM:VRT permission from original photographer. ✗plicit 13:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by D Michael.David (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader is the person in the pictures. Requires COM:VRT permission from original photographer(s).
- File:X 4900a0b339.jpg
- File:Fs2CeK4OzZI.jpg
- File:Military Doctor David.jpg
- File:Militray Doctor David.jpg
✗plicit 13:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jo Thar Gyi (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be ownworks, low file size without meta data, some are grabbed from facebook with FBMD
- File:THETHTETZAW TZIP.jpg
- File:THETHTETZAWTZIP.jpg
- File:Tzip.162704.jpg
- File:THZ IMG 1638948103409.jpg
- File:Ɨ5œ4907057285.jpg
Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 17:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- ok, Justnow all file delete.
- as you like fucking manage. Jo Thar Gyi (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Scan of a magazine CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. GeorgHH • talk 11:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: CD CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Who is this person? Seems non-notable and out of scope. Rosenzweig τ 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also, per the social media icons (barely) visible, probably also a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album or book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album or book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album or book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:014-insulin-4ins.png Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 09:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hjart as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copied from https://www.skyscrapercity.com/ which is not compatible with CCA SA 4.0 Please provide a link to the specific image as evidence. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/project-v%C3%A5ghuset-brick-studios-masthuggskajen.2278853/page-4#post-179085195 is the source. Please include File:Hotel GBG.png in any decision to keep or delete this image. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 November 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 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Uploader recently uploaded about 10 copyvios along with this image. While reverse image searching finds nothing, there is no EXIF data, and a faint border can be seen in the image. Very likely not own work. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 1
[edit]The sculpture is still covered by copyright, and there is no FOP in the US for artworks.
russavia (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Deleted, speedy would have been more appropriate than a DR.--KTo288 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 2
[edit]No FOP in the US for sculptures
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 3
[edit]No FOP in the US for statues.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 4
[edit]US FOP does not cover works of art or replicas of such work
- File:"Charging Bull" replica.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull1.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull2.jpg
- File:USA-NYC-Charging Bull.jpg
Elisfkc (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 5
[edit]No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures
- File:-i---i- (2315240491).jpg
- File:-i---i- (4018723188).jpg
- File:Arturo Di Modicas New York Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bowling Green Area - panoramio.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bull (781864253).jpg
- File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg
- File:Bull Market (14240717915).jpg
- File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg
- File:Bull Wallstreet.webm
- File:Bull-3112617.jpg
- File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (8825706602).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (9619086816).jpg
- File:Charging Bull - NYC, Set2011 (6177838958).jpg
- File:Charging Bull in 2020.png
- File:Charging Bull, Bowling Green, Manhattan, New York (7237057222).jpg
- File:Charging Bull, Bowling Green, Manhattan, New York (7237058674).jpg
- File:Chief Sitting (on) Bull ) (5871046255).jpg
- File:El Toro de Wall Street.webm
- File:Financial District, New York, NY, USA - panoramio (73).jpg
- File:I think he's running away from Wall Street... (3007506886).jpg
- File:More Bernie Less Bull.jpg
- File:New york (9787993752).jpg
- File:New York City (4890606552).jpg
- File:New York City NYC June 2010 (4739150916).jpg
- File:New York City, Wall Street The Charging Bull, 2013 (11435305495).jpg
- File:NYC The Bull (6542136151).jpg
- File:NYC The Bull (6542138021).jpg
- File:NYC – Broadway - Charging Bull or Wall Street Bull - panoramio.jpg
- File:People bringing offerings to the bull statue down on Wall Street. Someday, after Wall Street has fully hollowed out the US economy, we will be asked to explain what was going on here. (4985649767).jpg
- File:Shooting Charging Bull 2.jpg
- File:Taking The Wall Street Bull by the horns.3gp.webm
- File:The Wall Street Bull.webm
- File:Wall street (9071954241).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (11376739555).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (32840395088).jpg
- File:Wall Street IMG 3044 (5503618960).jpg
- File:Where's the bull? (4650882388).jpg
- File:“Charging Bull” of Wall Street (29061011327).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06_-_26_Broadway,_Charging_Bull.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Bull_)_(5871046255).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Elisfkc (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg and File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg since they do not violate COM:FOP US, due to de minimis usage. The Cunard Building and 26 Broadway, which are depicted in these images, were completed before December 1990 and as such is exempt: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. The bull is such a minor portion of these images that it doesn't infringe on the copyright of the original artist, but it is nearly impossible to take images of the specified vantage points without also including the bull in a de minimis capacity.
- Delete the remaining images as they are FOP violations without de minimis use. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc: For File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, which was taken by me, the Cunard Building was intended to be the focus, rather than the Bull. I was trying to get a picture of the entire building (see File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 77.jpg), but the street is too narrow so I had to take two images: 77 and 78. However, there is no way to get a direct shot of the lowest few stories, i.e. this view, because the Bull is in the way. I can theoretically take that image from beside the Bull, but I'd have a bunch of angry tourists. So i took 78 instead, with what I hoped was de minimis usage.
- For File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, I can't speak for Tdorante10, but I think the key part is that he was trying to take a picture of that particular vantage point, but the main features are 26 Broadway and the Bull. I would personally interpret it as an image of 26 Broadway, with the Bull as a de minimis incidental. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I understand now for File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg. I'd support a de minimis usage for that. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep File:Shooting Charging Bull 2.jpg as de minimis: subject of the photo is the people taking photographs of the statue, which is not even shown in its entirety, just the top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep
- as de minimis. It is because the bull is so small that it is obviously not the main subject of the first two photos. For the remaining one, there are many people surrounded the bull and we can't identify the bull clearly. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, but some are kept. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 6
[edit]No FoP in USA. Some of the images have a "de minimis" template. and some have been kept before. However none is de minimis. In the case of kept images there was never given a rationale in the keep decision of the deciding admin (or added next to the entry), why a specific image could fall under de minimis. The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis. Not in the DR: an image of the covered charging bull.
- File:26 Broadway (15526932196).jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 13.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg
- File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg
- File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg
- File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg
- File:New york (9787993752).jpg
- File:New York 2010, (20100324-DSC01214).jpg
- File:New York City (4890606552).jpg
- File:New York City Mai 2009 PD 034.JPG
- File:New York Film Academy (48126534366).jpg
- File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg
- File:The Line to be Photographed with the Charging Bull, Broadway, Manhattan, New York (7237048326).jpg
- File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg
- File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg
- File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg
- File:Where's the bull? (4650882388).jpg
- File:美國紐約68.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_06_-_26_Broadway,_Charging_Bull_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2783130469).jpg){kind=link}
C.Suthorn (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator's claim "The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis." is untrue. Some of these files have categories that describe even minor things in the image. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg also contains Category:1 Broadway, which is only visible as a sliver, and Category:Exterior of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, which is partially visible in the background (unlike sculptures, buildings in the USA do have FOP). I find it very hard to believe that Charging Bull is not de minimis in that picture, given that it's a very tiny portion of the picture itself; there are so many people in front of the sculpture that it actually is de minimis. There are other images where the Charging Bull is clearly not the focus of the image. File:美國紐約68.jpg is a view up Broadway where the sculpture is mostly hidden behind flagpoles. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg, the focus of the image is clearly the cement truck, and the bull is an incidental object in the background. File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg has been cropped significantly so that the clear focus of the image is 26 Broadway; however, its source file, File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, is eligible for deletion. One of the strangest files listed for deletion here is File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg, where Charging Bull is so clearly not the object of the picture that, if you did not know what the bull looked like, the brown objects on the right could be just about anything.That said, there are some images which definitely should be deleted, e.g. File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg and File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for a formal vote, Delete File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg (these three are my own pictures but I have no problem with deletion), File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg, File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg, File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg, File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg, File:New york (9787993752).jpg, File:New York City (4890606552).jpg, File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, and perhaps File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg and File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg. Keep the remaining files. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for a formal vote,
- Keep all, please stop trying to remove entire photographic backgrounds of reputable topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- How is File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg not de minimis? The Charging Bull is not the subject of the photograph (a photo taken from a distance and is of the street and buildings, which have FoP in the US) and is mostly blocked by people and only the top of the rear is visible if you’re looking hard enough.
- I’ve not looked at all of the others yet. Bidgee (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the nominator even bothered to check any of the images, instead indiscriminately nominating all files in Category:Charging Bull except for the covered bull (which has no chance at being deleted). To me, this is a very careless DR made simply because "the image is in the category, that means Charging Bull is not de minimis". Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree that one passes de mimimis. But is it worthwhile keeping as a generic NYC street scene? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I agree tat the nom did not investigate the images for whether or not the use of the sculpture was de minimis or not. Certainly my image, File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg is pretty much the definition of de minimis, as thre focus of the picture is not the sculpture itself, but the photographers taking images of it. Keep all until the nom take the time and effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a trout to boot Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP for this.
- I'm unconvinced by the de minimis claims. Maybe for this one, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, because there's a focus to that which isn't the Bull. But the others are either the Bull (a problem) or else they have no focus and they're a crowd of people blocking sight of the Bull. Now those might pass for de minimis, but I think that same argument then makes them fail COM:SCOPE! I see little need for a photo which describes as "A row of bollards, stopping anyone getting near, or us photographing, a copyrighted sculpture". If anyone wants to claim that these do have scope value (I think the 99% one does, maybe File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg too) then I wouldn't argue. But for general street scenes, we can and have done better with other images. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.
This entire nomination is an exercise in overreach and carelessness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.
- I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion above and the few images I checked, this is just another indiscriminate DR. Keep all, without prejudice to more targeted nominations with specific rationales. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: without prejudice to renomination of smaller groups. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 7
[edit]No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures
- File:'Charging Bull', Broadway, Manhattan, Feb. 2008 (2295717216).jpg
- File:'Charging Bull', Broadway, Manhattan, Feb. 2008 (2295723628).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Elisfkc (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fairly clear case here. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gampe as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work |source=https://f00.esfr.pl/foto/5/92164707777/140384bd7e7874204805276cc5d551bf/apple-airtag-leather-key-ring-golden-brown-mmfa3zm-a,92164707777_3.jpg Yann (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, not own work --Gampe (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- The link above is not the source. Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MM073ZM/A/airtag-leather-key-ring-forest-green. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1992, CERC Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar02leff).pdf
[edit]Contains limitation on use of data/report for 'advertising' purposes. This is not necessarily compatible with Commons licensing model ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is
PD-USGov. Such a restriction could only exist where copyright exists; as this is a U.S. government publication, there is no copyright, and thus no ability to enforce such a purported restriction. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1983 CERC Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar00mill).pdf
[edit]Document contains a limitation on the use of the report contents for 'advertising, publication or promotional; purposes" . This is not compatible with Commons licensing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think it carries the weight of copyright law, it was still published without a copyright notice. --RAN (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work is
PD-US-1978-89. Without a notice, the author would not have the authority to enforce a usage restriction. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Bed form development and distribution pattern, Parker and Essex estuaries, Massachusetts (IA bedformdevelopme00boot).pdf
[edit]Contains usage limiation on "advertising, publication or promotional purposes." This is not necesarily compatible with Commons licensing model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think the wording supersedes established copyright law, the book was still published without a copyright notice. This probably could have been handled better as a question at Village pump:Copyright, instead of diving right in to a deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work is
PD-US-no notice. If they didn’t put in a notice, they don’t have a copyright to enforce. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Screenshot Oder-Messwerte, Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messtation Frankfurt an der Oder, Juli August 2022.png
[edit]
Vermutlich Urheberrechtsverletzung Thilo Parg (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I oppose deletion, because the values are taken automaticly.[1] So there is no creator involved. The screenshoot is a documentation, which will vanish at its source automaticly, as the next two weeks go by.--Kresspahl (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wait 2 Weeks I wrote an email to the possibly rights-Owner (LFU) asking if they would be willing to give up the rights associated with the file to Wikipedia and told them indirectly that they have two weeks, to decide if they would be willing to give away those potential rights, they might own. I mentioned permissions-de@wikimedia.org, so this mail adress might receive a declaration from the LFU. ----LennBr (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete geschütztes Datenbankwerk. --Ralf Roletschek 05:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep obviously, as last poster pointed out. --Itu (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you translate what they sprechen, since most of don't? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Procedural, since the nom didn't bother to translate the rationale. In which case I'll present more of my keep rationale in Polish: to jest projekt w j. angielskim, wypowidanie się w innych językach to brak szacunku dla innych edytorów (których ja szanuję, ale tu protestuję przeciw zachowaniu nominatora), a dodatkowo precz z paranaicznym podejściem do praw autorskich. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Ask for the data and create an SVG. This upright format is almost useless for Wikipedia.--Hohntag (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Creater of the file here: Got an answer now from a public-relations-speaker from the LFU (State Institute for the Environment): "I see no copyright problem when using the screenshot if the copyright is properly identified and the Brandenburg State Office for the Environment is named as the source." --LennBr (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest forwarding this to Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team so that they can tag the image appropriately. Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The graphs are ineligible for copyright. Data itself can not be copyrighted. How could sticking eg. a thermometer in the river create any work that can be considered eligible for copyright. Even a set of measurements is not eligible for copyright. A work like a publication where the data is processed is eligible for copyright. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: ineligible for (c) protection. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1992, CERC Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar1995leff).pdf
[edit]Nothwithsanding the 'unlimited distribution' claim on page 1, Page 2 contains a usage restriction for "advertising,publication, or promotional purposes" . This is not necessarily compatible with the Commons licensing model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- no authority to impose such a restriction. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1994, CERC Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar01unit).pdf
[edit]Nothwithsanding the 'unlimited distribution' claim on page 1, Page 2 contains a usage restriction for "advertising,publication, or promotional purposes" . This is not necessarily compatible with the Commons licensing model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- no authority to impose such a restriction. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1995, CHL Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar002leff).pdf
[edit]Nothwithsanding the 'unlimited' distribution claim on page 1, Page 2 contains a usage restriction for "advertising,publication, or promotional purposes" . This is not necessarily compatible with the Commons licensing model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- no authority to impose such a restriction. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Annual data summary for 1995, CHL Field Research Facility (IA annualdatasummar001leff).pdf
[edit]Nothwithsanding the 'unlimited' distribution claim on page 1, Page 2 contains a usage restriction for "advertising,publication, or promotional purposes" . This is not necessarily compatible with the Commons licensing model. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- The description page says the paper is in the public domain. Are the restrictions non-copyright ones or simply invalid? @ShakespeareFan00: It seems you started several DRs with more or less the same rationale. Could you link them somehow? –LPfi (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- See Category:Usage restriction deletion requests for related DR's That category might also be useful for other related 'usage' restriction concern related DR's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, that this is a 'usage' restriction as opposed to an actual copyright limitation. Is there a tool for merging DR's ( because as you correctly mention, there are a number with the same concerns.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- no authority to impose such a restriction. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
File:61356907-rio-de-janeiro-rj-20-11-1991-daniella-perez-atriz-foto-paula-johas-agencia-o-globo-negati.webp
[edit]
Copyright infringement of Agência O Globo https://oglobo.globo.com/cultura/stories/caso-daniella-perez-relembre-o-crime-que-chocou-o-pais-e-que-vai-virar-serie-no-streaming.ghtml Sorocabano 32 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete clear copyright infringement. Minerva97 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Although this publication is issued by the Simthsonian it contains papers authored by non-federal employees ( In one instance working in Kenya,) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work is
PD-US-no notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Whilst issued by the Smithsonian, this puiblication contains contributions from at least 2 contributors that are not federal employees ( and appear to be British). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work (from 1979) is
PD-US-1978-89. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-1978-89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted file from Britannica SolarisAmigo (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ANIR KNOWLEDGE (talk · contribs)
[edit]DW no permission and no FOP in India
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Corrupted file Prolightx (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- To me it doesn't look corrupt. In use. --Achim55 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: used since 2008 on the internet according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The file (copied from http://fc-dv.ru/) is released as PD-textlogo not meeting the threshold of originality, consisting "only of simple geometric shapes or text". This is clearly not the case, and the image has no acceptable CreativeCommons or corresponding license. Seems like an obvious copyvio. Asav | Talk 15:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted before, very clearly above TOO in any country. Previous deletion request. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 15:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Should have been nominated for {{speedy}} deletion per the previous RFD. Clear copyvio. Asav | Talk 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Asav:
Done QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Asav:
Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Has very low resolution and a strange border suggesting that it's a screenshot from some other work on the web (COM:NETCOPYVIO). Created by a now-banned user. -M.nelson (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
no clear copyright Veracious (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: web-resolution montage, unlikely to be own work. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monozigote (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted art work by italian painter en:Guglielmo Pizzirani (1886 – 1971).
- File:Pizzirani Paesaggio Collinare.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Ritratto pittore Silvestrini.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Paesaggio Arboreo.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Costa Napoletana.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Casolare Bolognese.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Giovane Donna.jpg
- File:Pizzirani Santuario Beata Vergine San Luca.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 21:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monozigote (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted art work by italian painter en:Giorgio De Vincenzi (1884 – 1965).
- File:Torre nel ferrarese devincenzi.jpg
- File:Giorgio De Vincenzi-Ewer with Flowers.jpg
- File:Giorgio De Vincenzi Landscape.jpg
- File:Giorgio De Vincenzi Summer Afternoon.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monozigote (talk · contribs)
[edit]The uploader says these photos are from personal photo albums and has uploaded them with the claim that they are own work of the uploader. I don't think we can keep these without additional evidence that these photos are freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer) via COM:VRT, particularly since they all appear to have been previously published elsewhere with non-free licenses.
- File:Emmanuel Levinas 1973.jpg — Appeared on the cover of Emmanuel Levinas (1993) by Lescourret, Marie-Anne
- File:Emmanuel Levinas 1980.jpg — Exact image previously published at balzan.org
- File:Emmanuel Levinas 1985.jpg — Has Getty images EXIF metadata. This is Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #91487745 by Steve Pyke.
- File:Cropped photograph of American author and rabbi Chaim Potok (1929-2002), taken in 1998.jpg — This is Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #1213213398 by Frank Mächler.
- File:Henry Miller 1.jpg — This is Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #111301247 by Larry Colwell/Anthony Barboza.
- File:Henry Miller 2.jpg — This is Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #111301246 by Larry Colwell/Anthony Barboza.
- File:Henry Miller 3.jpg — Appeared at [3] in 2011
- File:Henry Miller Greece.jpg — This is by George Seferis. See [4].
- File:Henry Miller 5.jpg — Appeared at [5] in 2012
- File:Henry Miller 6.jpg — New Directions publishing has had this photo online since 2012.
- File:Boris Pasternak at his Peredelkino dacha 1958.jpg — Associated Press photo by Harold K. Milks. See [6]
,_taken_in_1998.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—RP88 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- All of the above were kept in my father's photographic album going back several years in the 20th century. My father died in 1993 and I kept all his photo mementos in my archive. I know that he allowed publication for many of them, in UK/Australia/USA newspapers and magazines (and books), but I cannot find any specific references in his past correspondence. I cannot understand why said photos cannot be placed on Commons, however please feel free to delete all of them. Thank you.--Monozigote (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Monozigote: Are you saying that your father took all of these photos himself? Many of these photos are by different photographers. Is your father Steve Pyke, Frank Mächler, Larry Colwell, Anthony Barboza, or George Seferis? If your father was not the photographer, did he acquire the rights to one or more of these photos from the original photographers? Note that File:Emmanuel Levinas 1985.jpg has EXIF data that indicates that the digital image came from the Getty Images archive, rather than a scan from your father's photographic album. —RP88 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't have a clue about the origin of any of them. My father was not a professional photographer but he knew a few of them. He himself appeared in some magazines, as he was a public figure both in Italy and the Commonwealth. I think I made a bad mistake in uploading the above images, as I was not aware of the relative complications. Please delete all of them at your earliest convenience and consider the matter closed, thank you.--Monozigote (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. —RP88 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't have a clue about the origin of any of them. My father was not a professional photographer but he knew a few of them. He himself appeared in some magazines, as he was a public figure both in Italy and the Commonwealth. I think I made a bad mistake in uploading the above images, as I was not aware of the relative complications. Please delete all of them at your earliest convenience and consider the matter closed, thank you.--Monozigote (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Monozigote: Are you saying that your father took all of these photos himself? Many of these photos are by different photographers. Is your father Steve Pyke, Frank Mächler, Larry Colwell, Anthony Barboza, or George Seferis? If your father was not the photographer, did he acquire the rights to one or more of these photos from the original photographers? Note that File:Emmanuel Levinas 1985.jpg has EXIF data that indicates that the digital image came from the Getty Images archive, rather than a scan from your father's photographic album. —RP88 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Putitonamap98 as Copyvio (Copyvio)
.png){kind=link}
Is {{PD-FLGov}} valid? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:King of Hearts It is free use. The picture is found under the public use gallery. See [7] Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem to be an official website... It's linked on the governor's website after hovering over "Media." This photo is also from SmugMug, so it could be official. --reppoptalk 01:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: PD-FLGov. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Sourced as originating from cronachemaceratesi.it. This website is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 IT which is incompatible with Commons demands. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Maaf, gambar ini tidak pantas untuk ensiklopedia Irvan Cahyo N (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Screenshot from unknown source, possible copyvio. 91.193.177.188 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - appears to be an own work by DrDuu 007. Perhaps he just needs to update the page. Thewolfchild (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from [8]. There is no evidence that User:DrDuu 007 is identical with Youtube user DrDuu, so a COM:VRT permission would be needed. Rosenzweig τ 14:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an organisation;s logo. The claim to being the copyright holder is not credible. The design might be too simple to copyright though. Whpq (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep seems textlogo to me. --Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: simple Indian textlogo.--Roy17 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded for w:India Greens Party and w:User:Mortalrahu/sandbox. No other use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no longer in use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Galleries in general are pointless and just pollute search results and should be deprecated, but especially this one can be deleted without value loss Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I think galleries in general are useful, as long as they are filled according to their purpose: with a structured and meaningful collection of the media about the subject, see Commons:Galleries. But too often there are only a few images, even just one or two. I agree that those galleries are not meaningful at all, including this one. Then we have two options:
- Ask for a deletion. I recommend that when there are only a few images in the category with the same name,then the category itself is enough.
- Add more images, expand the gallery, let the gallery be a guide to the subcategories of the main category, so that we'll see a meaningful collection of the media about the subject.
- In this case I would prefer the second option. --JopkeB (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: given that COM:GALLERIES is not depreciated, the discussion then goes to whether this gallery has potential to be useful. It is argued that this one can be meaningfully expanded. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Done --JopkeB (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This photo was provided for the interview, not taken during the interview. The copyright is held by the original photographer, not by the party issuing the YouTube CC license. czar 03:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
File:COA of the Principality of Chernigov (according to the Czar Titular Registry of Muscovy, 1672).svg
[edit].svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Irrelevant lower quality version of File:House of Kozelsk COA.svg. Genatsvale (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, this is not an exact copy of the other file. This file has a long history of versions and should be maintained. --Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Some table files
[edit]Files for b:it:Algebre_booleane_e_progetto_logico_dei_calcolatori_digitali/Circuiti_di_un_calcolatore_digitale_(a), replaced by a wikitable, lighter and accesible:
- File:Truth_Table_of_Half_Adder.png
- File:Full_Adder_Truth_Table_(2).png
- File:Tabella_della_verità_per_la_sottrazione_binaria.png
- File:TrueTable_for_Full_Subtractor.png
- File:Variabile_binaria.png
- File:Tabella_riassuntiva_delle_diffrenze.png
- File:Tabella_di_un_comparatore_seriale.png
- File:Tvola_della_verita_di_un_up-counter.png
- File:Tavola_della_verità_per_flip-flop_SR.png
- File:Codice_8421.png
- File:Tabella_2.8.2.png
- File:Tabella_relativa_a_contatore_codice_accesso_tre.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 08:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: I've replaced the file. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 08:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination deleted most, because text only and out of COM:SCOPE. One is still in use on the projects. User:Tinker Bell, if you can replace it by a wikitable that file can also be deleted. Please give me a call in that case. --Ellywa (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted all now. None in use. Ellywa (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Masur as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Given the context of the book, clearly a 15th-16th century illustration and in the public domain. The rest of the cover is just title text without creative input. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EoRdE6 as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Its size, original name, and being in GIF format all strongly suggest a FOTW origin (I don't feel like looking for it on that site)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The design is
PD-US-GovEdict. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC) - Keep. I am not certain how a flag is an edict, but according to this the flag design was submitted as part of a contest. That submission (publication) occurred more than one year before it was eventually selected by the county as the winner in late 1989. Copyright was not registered for this flag design within 5 years. Consequently it should be in the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously not own work, depicted person died in 1910. The picture is re-taken probably from a screen. Original picture might be PD-old, but the real source and author should be provided. Gumruch (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Krásný den,
- tuto fotografii jsem pořídil ofocením ze spisku Artuš Drtil, Výbor z prací, V Praze : Nákladem Lidového družstva tiskařského a vydavatelstvo "Přehled", 1913, který vlastním. Poté jsem fotku obarvil. Spisek leze dohledat i v národní digitální knihovně. Rád k fotce zdroj, odkud pochází uvedu, ale bohužel při vkládání jsem nezjistil, jak to udělat. Rád bych fotografii u článku zachoval, neboť je snad jedinou dochovanou s Drtilovou podobiznou a podpisem. Prosím, pokud mi v tom pomůžete, budu Vám zavázán. Moc Vám děkuji za jakoukoliv odpověď. LiboKvap (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I provided the real source to the image. Original image was taken between 1906 and 1909 and the author is not provided in 1913 book, thus the photo should meet criteria for {{PD-anon-70-EU}} license tag. Speedy close. –Gumruch (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The best license is "PD-EU-no author disclosure" or "PD-anon-70-EU" both are the same, probably should be merged. --RAN (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, correctly licensed in the current situation. --Ellywa (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how this image could realistically be useful for an educational purpose. The description gives no context, and the place is barely visible behind the unexplained pile of luggage. Feels more like a Facebook post than a commons image. Chris j wood (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I've attempted to provide some context based on the source page[9], the route sheet for the walk[10], and en:Long Distance Walkers Association. We don't seem to have a category on Commons for the organisation or its events. I express no opinion on the usefulness of the picture. --bjh21 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. Can be a stock photo. I added the photo to the Category:Bags in the United Kingdom. --Ellywa (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
can better be typeset as text; storing the image suggests that it is the original work (1951) by Brucke, while it is in fact own work (2011) by User:Coranton Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Pure text and therefore out of COM:SCOPE. The use of this file on https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%86%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%AE%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%A9%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6 can imho be missed. --Ellywa (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2A01:C22:ACFD:500:7BC9:C67F:692D:9999 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Kostenlose Nutzung" ist nicht cc-by-sa, wuerde ich sagen. Siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/de#Zul%C3%A4ssige_Lizenzen: Die kommerzielle Nutzung des Werkes muss erlaubt sein.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, though the rationale of the nominator seems to be sound. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. @PolderDuHolder: , please closely follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the copyright holder/photographer to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image can be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe this is their own work. Its clearly cropped from something, and is the only thing they uploaded. Subject born in 1902 so may even be PD if we knew anything about its actual origin. All over the internet but we've had since 2008, so we could be the source I suppose. Secretlondon (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP. Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of this image. Therefore – due to insufficient of information like source, author, publication status and creation date – this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an unpublished letter written in 1930, in the United Kingdom, by Harold Hartley. Hartley died in 1972. I'm not entirely sure which specific aspect of UK copyright law applies to this letter, but I think it's 70 years after death, per the British Copyright Council; as such, this letter will continue to be under copyright until 1 January 2043. DS (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ignatus as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: tons of it on internet, e.g. https://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/2637396/photos/. Please provide a link to the specific image; it is very difficult to find in a gallery of 67 images. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- The title one, just it's cropped there. The original image is likely here: http://m.kino-teatr.ru/kino/acter/ros/330510/foto/1177425 Ignatus (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your linked version is of lower resolution and lacks EXIF. Therefore I think it is best to give the uploader a chance to explain the situation rather than speedy deleting it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to think this is not an own photo of the uploader. --Ellywa (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:500-mb pressure chart 2021-06-28 700EST Heat dome Pacific NW.png Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, is not an exact copy, but a cropped version. Might be of use to show more detail. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
2001 publication by Smithsonian/ National Museum of Natural History. To what extent are publications of these works of US gov given that they are museums ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. The bulletin contains various photo's which are obviously not taken/owned by US Gov. --Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)