Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/11/07
 |
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}
_–_6462_025.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![116 File:Карта "Мамаевой Слободы".jpg](#File:Карта_"Мамаевой_Слободы".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_ab_1950_als_99_4612_bezeichnet,_am_24._Juni_1960_in_Klockow.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Photo shows Google Maps which is copyrighted by Google Maps Streamline8988 (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 09:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Redirect to nowhere. Sumanuil (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, broken redirect. --Rosenzweig τ 09:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
{{copyvio|source=https://www.suteteko.biz/shopdetail/000000000647/}} 61.120.241.1 11:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
誤った写真をアップしてしまったため Moonhumor (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted logo, likely to be above COM:TOO A1Cafel (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Vera (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.vrtu-vvkure.com/album/displayimage.php?album=185&pos=7. Not own work, but looks old: public domain? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757:
Speedy delete. The source says this is the 8th of 20 photos in an album of 1st Lieutenants in 1979 of a school in Vilnius, without photographer name. COM:Russia and COM:Lithuania say the copyright lasts 70 years, through 2049. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination--missed that. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Tggfggfggfgg Bastianana (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hhgggggggf Bastianana (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I realized it is bad for my privacy Sarius9 (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & geopos in EXIF. --Achim55 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
_%E2%80%93_6462_025.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_6462_025.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploaded by accident Maria Eugenia Tita (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
_–_6462_025.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
_–_6462_025.jpg){kind=link}
No apparent value, too small. Till (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Till.niermann
Speedy keep It’s in use at en:Template talk:Solar System/Archive 3#Interactive image. Maybe it’s not the kind of use that automatically makes the file be in scope, but it does show a realistic educational use. Compare the proposed template there with the actual template and the image it uses, Solar System Template Final.png. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, deleting this file would (kind of) break that archived discussion as well. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, OK. I stumbled upon this micro-sized collection of pixels while trying to clean up Category:Mars (planet). If it's good for something after all, let's keep it. Till (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Till.niermann Looks like there’s no reason to delete the file. Are you OK with me closing this discussion early? Brianjd (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, OK with me. Till (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Till.niermann Looks like there’s no reason to delete the file. Are you OK with me closing this discussion early? Brianjd (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, OK. I stumbled upon this micro-sized collection of pixels while trying to clean up Category:Mars (planet). If it's good for something after all, let's keep it. Till (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, deleting this file would (kind of) break that archived discussion as well. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator; no other reason to delete. Brianjd (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Copyright Image | Movie Poster uploaded in high resolution Soumendrak (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Brief biography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. If this bit of text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clearly out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot Intergram?! If thats true, the image is most likely protectet by copyright. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation from indicated source. Pyrope (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
ordinary person; IMG not used @WM Mateus2019 (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by QRrnspz003 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used or used on vanity Wikidata item.
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 18.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 8.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 7.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 10.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 11.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 21.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 20.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 15.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 19.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 14.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 13.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 12.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 2.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 1.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Biennale di Venezia.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - fotografo.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 22.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 23.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 24.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - 25.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione - presidente di Italia Liberty.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte Riccione.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Critico d'arte.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Artista - Artist - Fotografo.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali - Esperto d'arte Liberty.jpg
- File:Andrea Speziali a villa Zanelli Savona.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete definitely out of scope.
- Vituzzu (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Darmstrong2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko How can it possibly be out of scope when it has an article on enwiki? Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai importé ce fichier qui est obsolète pourriez-vous le supprimer ? Cordialement AxelCFC (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai réimporté ce fichier avec le bon copyright pourriez-vous supprimer celui-ci ? Cordialement AxelCFC (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour, J'ai réimporté ce logo avec le bon copyright pourriez-vous supprimer celui-ci ? Cordialement AxelCFC (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyvio based on the uploader's track record. Incomplete metadata. Small. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
OOS, apparent personal photo with face blurred, no in-scope usefulness Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It is strange that the face is blurred; no hits on TinEye (so no leads to the unblurred version). Supposedly a photo of a cyclist called Emilio Montiel, whose name matches a deleted eswiki article. I found no other references to this subject. Brianjd (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Source "Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia". No evidence of free licence. This is actually a public domain picture with a Chinese caption, we have the picture on Wikipedia (see Category:Max Weber) - no need for this captioned low quality version anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. at File:Max Weber 1917.jpg. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
copy of -Մելիք–Շահնազարյանների տոհմակակ տապանատուն 01.jpg Kareyac (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails COM:SCOPE Nw520 (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This logo would need to be {{PD-logo}} in both the United States (where the Commons' servers are located) and in its country of origin (which seems to be South Korea). This seems very close if not too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection in the US per COM:TOO United States, but things are even less clear for South Korea per COM:TOO South Korea. I can't see how this can be kept as "PD-logo" by Commons based upon some of the comments received so far at COM:VPC#File:Girls' Generation Logo.jpg, and the only possiblility for keeping would seem to be getting the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT per COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Image is above TOO US, so PD Logo is inappropriate. Without a suitable license, it does not belong on Commons. Glrx (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it's still under copyright in the USA but not in the rest of the world, so why do we have to delete it? -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. WMF's servers are in the USA, so things must be free to use there. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA per the warning on the template A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA per the warning on the template A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA per the warning on the template A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely own work, see watermark. Xunks (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload. I suspect, that this is not selfie as claimed, but violates real photographer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:PauloSilva
[edit]- File:Logo superfacil.png
- File:Logomarca-lojas-rio-center.png
- File:Logomarca-jornal-o-mossoroense.png
Some of these logos are too complex and may be original enough to be protected by copyright laws. Note that this editor has a long history of copyvio. I'm opening this DR, so the community can voice their opinions about these files. --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep File:Logomarca-jornal-o-mossoroense.png as {{Pd-textlogo}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin What about the others? Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I dont’t think the other two qualify for {{PD-textlogo}} -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin What about the others? Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept 1 as PD-textlogo, deleted the other 2. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in Finland A1Cafel (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This chemical structure is missing stereochemical information that is key to distinguishing it from other prodelphinindins. We have File:Prodelphinidin B3.svg as a correct, high-quality replacement. Marbletan (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Two of the amide groups are drawn in an implausible tautomer. Stereochemistry is ambiguous at two positions. We have File:Ravidasvir.svg as a correct, high-quality replacement. Marbletan (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
According to doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2003.09.102, the amino acid sequence of this peptide is ACFWKYCV. The third amino acid is phenylalanine, so the cyclohexyl ring depicted in this image should really be a phenyl ring. We have File:Urotensin II-related peptide.svg as a correct, high-quality replacement. Marbletan (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy: Recreation of deleted photo (see above). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim for the pic of an actress in Iran: small size, user upload history 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bahrain A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The subject on the right in this photo is the uploader. Requires COM:VRT permission from the original photographer. ✗plicit 06:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Bahrain. Image focus too much on the modern building, not a general skyline view A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bahrain A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This rendering/vectorization has obvious as source this screenshot, taken from here. As there is no evidence of a free license for the original image, the image IMO is a derivative without permission. But that should be discussed. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Not own work, taken from https://bzkf.de/bzkf-imagebroschuere/ Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A flipped version found here in 2020 - https://www.facebook.com/WerdeWechslerWaehler/photos/a.107201421132707/107202481132601 - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Blurry and unused image, no educational value A1Cafel (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, needs proper license and permission A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:0-02-05-65fe93477566643650b9a23644095b7c0fb1793c3af1e6d0a52723045645afce 6e5e94bf44cfd4b2.jpg
[edit]
Not Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radaerb23 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIO - low res, professional/close vantage of notable person, alternative more complete version here in 2018, well before 2022 Commons upload, uploader copyvio history, etc. Duck/COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Dubious licensing: celebrity selfie claimed as "own work". Wcam (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Highly likely COM:NETCOPYVIO. See uploader's upload history. Wcam (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A 1971 image is still under copyright protection in Chile A1Cafel (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A 1975 image is still under copyright protection in Chile A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Qatar. Image focus too much on the modern building, not a general skyline view A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A copyrighted work in the background. No permission from its author. Ankry (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope. Jadidjw (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously? Out of scope? Keep, in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Low resolution (424 × 797) and no camera metadata. Do we believe the Flickr license?
- @Ikan Kekek Unused, unlinked, and in the category Hazara people (which contains 110 files, not counting subcategories). Why is it so obviously in scope? Brianjd (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- A picture of a Hazara militiaman with a gun could be not in scope? It doesn't matter how many other files there are, unless you want to argue that this is unusable, and I would disagree with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Seems like a good argument. The file probably needs a better description. Brianjd (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- A picture of a Hazara militiaman with a gun could be not in scope? It doesn't matter how many other files there are, unless you want to argue that this is unusable, and I would disagree with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 05:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Qatar. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Al Janoub Stadium A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This image shows more than an incidental amount of the stadium, therefore would have to fall under FOP. Without FOP in Qatar, Commons cannot host this image. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
File:0-02-05-eb5668f89f35a2f0ab0f936caa82663320d88863b5d544ee6956fe7da8c59683 4160be07dd0a803b.jpg
[edit]
Fails COM:SCOPE Nw520 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright issues - no evidence of permission - appears to be from https://www.facebook.com/shantaholdings/photos/a.326916227473734/2196441457187859/ WildComet (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative of Apple Emoji without permission Ilzolende (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo depicted modern architecture inside the museum. There is no freedom of panorama in Qatar. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, and the copyright term of the country lasted for 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2070.
- File:Doha Museum of Islamic Art - inside building.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 07.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 08.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 14.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 15.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 16.jpg
- File:InsideMIA.jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (19).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (21).jpg
- File:Museum Islamic Art Doha 3470122137 354168dabf.jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha (5244078966).jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (67).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (68).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (69).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (70).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (71).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (72).JPG
- File:Projection at Hall Entrance - Museum of Islamic Art - Doha - Qatar (34269638970).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Interior architectural details of a building in Qatar which does not have freedom of panorama. The building's author is the late w:en:I. M. Pei. The stairs, perfectly-arranged windows, and floor designs.
- File:Atrium MIA Doha Qatar.jpg
- File:Doha Museum of Islamic Art - stairs.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 09.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 10.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 11.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 12.jpg
- File:Doha, Museo de Arte Islámico 13.jpg
- File:Foyer of the Islamic Art Museum (3193469330).jpg
- File:Interior of Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar in December, 2019.jpg
- File:Islamic Art Museum (3192619535).jpg
- File:Islamic Art Museum (3193473304).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (20).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (22).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (23).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (24).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum Doha - panoramio (25).jpg
- File:Islamic Museum, Qatar24.JPG
- File:Laika ac Museum of Islamic Art (8396865702).jpg
- File:Men on Balcony - Museum of Islamic Art - Doha - Qatar (34524243301).jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art .jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art Doha interior.jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic art in Doha, Qatar, built by architect I.M Pei. (32446639700).jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha (5243478511).jpg
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (63).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (64).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (65).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (66).JPG
- File:Museum of Islamic Art, Doha 00 (73).JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ruth Wasserman Lande
[edit]The source photo was sent via whatsapp- likely not own work and i think we need OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
no source, no author, no license Mateus2019 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
訂正の必要なデータ 翔之介 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
投稿者による削除の依頼。内容の変更および投稿の取り下げを求む 翔之介 (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't read Japanese, but photos like this with labels seem useful. My question would be whether this is copyright violation, given that the image is small and EXIF is lacking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek DuckDuckGo, when given the search query translate, displays a translator. It gives the following translations:
- 訂正の必要なデータ → Data that needs correction
- 投稿者による削除の依頼。内容の変更および投稿の取り下げを求む → Deletion request by contributor. Request a change in content and withdrawal of a post
- Unfortunately, that doesn’t help with the file itself. Maybe it really does need correction. But then the correct answer is to simply overwrite the file with the corrected version.
- It should definitely be kept if there are no copyright issues. Brianjd (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek DuckDuckGo, when given the search query translate, displays a translator. It gives the following translations:
コモンズの推奨する「透かしの使用を推奨しない」に違反するためです。投稿者により改善された写真資料を再投稿します 翔之介 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- 単純に上書きアップロードするのでは駄目なのでしょうか。Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/ja#上書きすべき場合には、「透かしの除去」が含まれています。Why don't you just overwrite the image? Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#DO_overwrite includes the case of "removal of a watermark". --emk (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an unused COM:PENIS that doesn't really seem to have any educational value above that of other images of penises with foreskin on them. As such, this should be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep it’s decent quality and an interesting example of an unusual foreskin. However it also is not essential in any way and features a pointless watermark. Will probably crop if kept. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep very unusual foreskin. genitals are clearly in project scope. keep unless we have a better picture of this. --Ordercrazy (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per others, since Dronebogus plans to crop .-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk The description says it’s the source for 陰茎による包皮の解説及び全体図 00.jpg (the labelled version). (Read the descriptions before nominating files for deletion!)
- Also, the file itself is obviously in scope. The opening of the foreskin seems to be at a right angle to the shaft; this is indeed unusual. I noticed it even on the labelled version.
- Unfortunately, the labelled version has its own DR, where Ikan Kekek raised copyright concerns. Brianjd (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader changed the DR tag on this file to display this rationale: 投稿者による削除の依頼。内容の変更および投稿の取り下げを求む (DuckDuckGo translation: Deletion request by contributor. Request a change in content and withdrawal of a post). I reverted this change, since the new rationale does not even appear on this page.
- Also, the new rationale doesn’t even make sense. It made sense when it was written at the other DR, for the labelled version. But here, what is there to change? Brianjd (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- 削除 I would like the person who posted it to delete it. However, we will repost the photo materials in response to the voice of survival. The reason for reposting is that he goes against Commons' recommendation to "do not recommend using watermarks". Please delete the offending photos in the log as well. 翔之介 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
not in use ئەلكۈن (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Picture of an artist that is not in the encyclopedia with a logo possibly falling under copyvio, Usage of Commons as personal use, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
DW - not own work of map Radaerb23 (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
![10:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/11/07#c-Radaerb23-20221107101600-File:Карта_"Мамаевой_Слободы".jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom and due to inconsistent lighting. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
![14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/11/07#c-Krd-20221114140900-File:Карта_"Мамаевой_Слободы".jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Vibhorsrivastava28 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work, no exif, black border, PCP
- File:Prof ON Srivastava with Mr. S Sridharan, Respond Project coordinator at VSSC, ISRO-Trivandrum.jpg
- File:Prof ON Srivastava with Mr. R Chidambram, ex scientific advisor to Government of India.jpg
- File:Prof ON Srivastava at reception ceremony of Padma Shri Award.jpg
- File:Prof ON Srivastava addressing young researchers on Hydrogen Day.jpg
- File:Prof ON Srivastava with Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam.jpg
- File:Prof ON Srivastava expressing his views on education at JPS, Varanasi.jpg
- File:Padma Shree awarded to prof ON Srivastava 2016.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
No FOP in Dubai --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Uploader is Citylandgroup; can we assume they have the rights? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- On a typical basis, copyright belongs to the architect and not the owner of the building. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted work of art, image was taken directly from the Felix Gonzalez Torres Foundation's website: https://www.felixgonzalez-torresfoundation.org/works/untitled-sagitario 19h00s (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Signature is obsolete. Source from which the signature is, has nothing to do with the current office of Yasmin Fahimi. She asks that the signature be deleted. SeHenn8 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Minorax as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: Album cover/Movie poster.. Nowhere else on web, so not obvious enough for speedy IMO. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by (Oinkers42) as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo (ghost is likely above COM:TOO). Nominating for further discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as the original placer of tag. The ghost character in the logo is above COM:TOO. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A 1970s image is still under copyright protection in ChileAustralia A1Cafel (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Delete This photo was clearly not taken in Chile! It was taken in Australia! That doesn’t change the conclusion about copyright. Brianjd (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Ce portrait imaginaire de St-Paul-hors-les-Murs, représente Benoît X, qui n'est plus reconnu comme pape. Voir https://fr.dreamstime.com/photo-stock-pape-antipape-beno%C3%AEt-x-image99451244 Sumenol (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given for deletion.
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Silvestro3.jpg likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can keep, but you will keep an ERROR. If the photo sent does not convince you, you can also go to https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html The images are indisputable, but you have to search a little (left part towards the choir). Otherwise, if you are still not convinced, you can go to St Paul outside the Walls. The error comes from the posters sold on site. As many portraits are imaginary. They did not want to leave the Sylvester III box (considered in the 19th century as an antipope) empty. They replaced that of Benedict X (then considered pope). Afterwards, you do as you want, but I will have done my job by pointing out the problem to you Sumenol (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The image description already knows and says it's "antipope Benedict X.". No reason to delete the file. --MF-W 14:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comme elle n'illustre a priori aucun article, cela ne pose pas trop de problème. Mais il faudra la renommer pour qu'on ne puisse plus faire le lien avec Sylvestre III. Ce n'est pas le cas d'une autre image identique qui elle entraîne beaucoup d'erreurs sur Wikipedia. Sumenol (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- The image description already knows and says it's "antipope Benedict X.". No reason to delete the file. --MF-W 14:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can keep, but you will keep an ERROR. If the photo sent does not convince you, you can also go to https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html The images are indisputable, but you have to search a little (left part towards the choir). Otherwise, if you are still not convinced, you can go to St Paul outside the Walls. The error comes from the posters sold on site. As many portraits are imaginary. They did not want to leave the Sylvester III box (considered in the 19th century as an antipope) empty. They replaced that of Benedict X (then considered pope). Afterwards, you do as you want, but I will have done my job by pointing out the problem to you Sumenol (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, in use. --Krd 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This portrait is still widely used to represent Sylvester III while it shows Antipope Benedict X (see https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html) Sumenol (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Still no reason to delete it. Change the description, even rename it, but deletion is not appropriate. A representation of Benedict X is just as valid here as one of Sylvester III.
- Besides which, you've given no comprehensible evidence to support your claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 14:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Andy Dingley wrote this amazing sentence to refuse the second deletion: "you've given no comprehensible evidence to support your claim". Yet what is more obvious than a photo (accessible via the link https://www.alamy.it/papa-antipapa-benedetto-x-nato-giovanni-fu-papa-dal-1058 -al-1059-la-basilica-di-san-paolo-fuori-le-mura-roma-italia-image448503796.html) showing that the falsely used portrait is that of Benedictus X (which cannot be translated as Silvestre III) . And if there is still a little doubt, this second link (https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html) allows (by searching a little) you to put the medallion back in its environment of origin.
As long as there is the slightest link on Wikipedia between Silvestre III and the image whose deletion is requested, there will be an error on Wikipedia. Wishing like everyone else that this source of information be as reliable as possible, my duty will be to have this error removed on the basis of an indisputable fact easily verifiable with the evidence that I bring.Sumenol (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
1 013 / 5 000 Résultats de traduction On Wikipedia, several images have used the medallion of Antipope Benedict X from the outset to illustrate the imaginary portrait of Silvestre III. But the latter was not considered a legitimate pope in the 19th century, when the mosaics were made at Saint Paul outside the Walls. No image represents it. The most used fake portrait was eliminated from Wikipedia a few weeks ago. But there are others including this one, which is still falsely used on several Wikipedia pages. It must be removed because it perpetuates the error. The small corrective notice written on this page is not enough. This error is indisputable. Voir : https://www.alamy.it/papa-antipapa-benedetto-x-nato-giovanni-fu-papa-dal-1058-al-1059-la-basilica-di-san-paolo-fuori-le-mura-roma-italia-image448503796.html and search at https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html Sumenol (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley wrote this amazing sentence to refuse the second deletion: "you've given no comprehensible evidence to support your claim". Yet what is more obvious than a photo (accessible via the link https://www.alamy.it/papa-antipapa-benedetto-x-nato-giovanni-fu-papa-dal-1058 -al-1059-la-basilica-di-san-paolo-fuori-le-mura-roma-italia-image448503796.html) showing that the falsely used portrait is that of Benedictus X (which cannot be translated as Silvestre III) . And if there is still a little doubt, this second link (https://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/Media/VR/St_Paul_Nave/index.html) allows (by searching a little) to replace the medallion in its original environment. As long as there is the slightest link on Wikipedia between Silvestre III and the image whose deletion is requested, there will be an error on Wikipedia. Wishing like everyone else that this source of information be as reliable as possible, my duty will be to have this error removed on the basis of an indisputable fact easily verifiable with the evidence that I bring. Sumenol (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Your "duty" is to start a discussion on the file's talk page and stop being disruptive by starting one deletion request after another for a file that's in use on multiple sites. It may be time to suspend your editing privileges. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol You failed to ping Andy Dingley, who also suggested that you request a rename. That is what you should have done. Brianjd (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sumenol and Ikan Kekek: I have tagged the file {{Fact disputed}}. Brianjd (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- It took me almost a year to cancel a first link between a portrait of Silvestre III and that of Benedict X. We are touching here on a very heavy problem of form on Wikipedia, which sometimes harms the substance. I have given you all the evidence of the error. You can call me a troublemaker, threaten to punish me. But that won't change the facts. As long as there is a link between Sylvester III and the portrait, there will be an error on Wikipedia. So, maybe it's time to be constructive and break this link rather than wanting to "destroy" the one who reports the error and proves it, while not being a Wikipedia specialist like you (I see basic problems). Sumenol (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those who favor construction, and others who want to destroy difference. I just read a message from a contributor who thanked me for changing the portrait of Sylvester III. Sumenol (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand that Deletion requests is not the right place to have the debate you are trying to have. Images that are in use simply do not get deleted on this kind of basis, and you will never resolve anything by continuing to try to debate facts on Deletion requests. That is why you may have to be suspended if you keep this up - it's disruptive for no useful purpose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are those who favor construction, and others who want to destroy difference. I just read a message from a contributor who thanked me for changing the portrait of Sylvester III. Sumenol (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- It took me almost a year to cancel a first link between a portrait of Silvestre III and that of Benedict X. We are touching here on a very heavy problem of form on Wikipedia, which sometimes harms the substance. I have given you all the evidence of the error. You can call me a troublemaker, threaten to punish me. But that won't change the facts. As long as there is a link between Sylvester III and the portrait, there will be an error on Wikipedia. So, maybe it's time to be constructive and break this link rather than wanting to "destroy" the one who reports the error and proves it, while not being a Wikipedia specialist like you (I see basic problems). Sumenol (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: As before. Please do not nominate again for the same invalid reason. --Krd 09:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Competition diploma. Out of scope and/or copyright violation. Radmir Far (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is out of date, does not allow the owner of the photo. Ensar KILIÇ (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is out of date, the owner of the photo and the book does not allow sharing. Ensar KILIÇ (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is out of date, the owner of the photo and the book does not allow sharing. Ensar KILIÇ (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - I've blanked the advert out, Not entirely happy with the result but it's the best I can do and sadly we can't use COM:DEMINIMIS here, Vans such as these in "advert" form are rare, Anyway keep. –Davey2010Talk 12:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Could the closing admin also revdel File:Cheltenham Festival advert, 2017 (33460289585).jpg for the same reasons please, Saves 2 DRs :), Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: It still contains a photo on the van. --Krd 05:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Krd, If you're referring to File:Cheltenham Festival advert, 2017 (33460289585).jpg then I did replace the horse copyrighted image with a free one however I've only just realised the black area up top contains a stand and a building. I was trying to keep as much as I could,
- Anyway as a temporary solution I've blanked everything out for now, Time is against me so for now they will have to do, Apologies for not spotting that sooner tho, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Done - both images completely blanked, will do a better job at a later date, Thanks,
- –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Krd, If you're referring to File:Cheltenham Festival advert, 2017 (33460289585).jpg then I did replace the horse copyrighted image with a free one however I've only just realised the black area up top contains a stand and a building. I was trying to keep as much as I could,
- @Davey2010: It still contains a photo on the van. --Krd 05:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 15:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This in an artwork by Jukka Hautamäki and it's unlikely licensed for free use. Puppe100 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Il reindirizzamento è errato, in quanto l'attribuzione del ritratto a Ippolita Sforza è del tutto fantasiosa. Beaest (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{copyvio|source=http://junsky07.blog89.fc2.com/blog-entry-4906.html}} 61.120.241.1 11:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not found at mentioned page. --Krd 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of not public domain art. Author Isamu Noguchi dead in 1988. 61.120.241.1 23:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This logo is asserted to be PD for not meeting the threshold of originality. COM:CRT/Russia is a little unclear on TOO for logos, but the general info on art works and the deliberate choice would indicate that TOO is likely quite low. In any case, the use of multiple airplanes in a hub and spoke configuration is above the threshold of originality even if the bar were set higher. Whpq (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
taken from https://www.facebook.com/Audible.Hoerbuecher/photos/lebensretter-und-verr%C3%A4ter-pionierie-und-hochstapler-janine-funke-fabian-klabunde/2908805995820230/ Trade (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Clear notice " May 1982 (C) Neil C. Bourgeois" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Only 25% of all images are ever in use. This corporation has a Wikidata entry, and we always save historical logos as they change over time. See: Category:Paramount Pictures logos and Category:Coca-Cola logos. --RAN (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- That entry is wikidata:Q114905331. Brianjd (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: organization is within scope, historical logo. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Il ne respecte pas la réalité avec l´anexión du Sahara occidentale par le Maroc 88.15.92.69 11:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Image is probably copyrighted but dubiously listed under a Creative Commons License Goji1895 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dark, private photograph without educational value. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Violation of Commons:De minimis. Copyrighted icon only made up part of the original image (File:PXL_20220701_203641136.MP.jpg) so that image would likely be acceptable under DM, but this crop makes it a copyright violation. Yeeno (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Yeeno: , I had no knowledge, of Commons:de minimis at the time I made this crop, I don't mind if you getting deleted. So can you tell me how you found out this picture existed, Just curious. 4me689 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @4me689: No worries at all, copyright policy can be confusing. It was brought up by a user on the Wikipedia Discord, who wanted clarification on the status on the file. Yeeno (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @4me689 As the nominator said, copyright is confusing. I added {{De minimis}} to the source file to warn others. I described the cropped part as Technoblade icon. Is that an accurate description? Brianjd (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Crop violates Commons:De minimis. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Gnarsgnars as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
No longer used. Removed by uploader. Gnarsgnars (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: notable artist. However, the EXIF - "_error" - is concerning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek More concerning is the information template that gives the source as Website. But no non-Wikimedia hits on TinEye. Brianjd (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Gnarsgnars But uploaded in 2011, more than 10 years ago. Much too long for a courtesy deletion without an exceptional reason. Brianjd (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 05:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:1,1-Ethanediol-2D-structure.svg as high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Información erronea Rogelio Muñoz (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please advise which exact information is wrong. --Krd 13:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from FB. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Información erronea Rogelio Muñoz (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please advise which exact information is wrong. --Krd 13:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from social media. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Lack of permission from the author. First publication: https://letrois.info/actualites/nord-franche-comte-qui-sont-vos-5-deputes/?amp tyseria (d) 08:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a picture of me TheNeditor37291 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @TheNeditor37291 This appears to be the source of DoonleBWYoung.png. Is that correct? Should the other file be deleted too? Brianjd (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that would be great, thanks. TheNeditor37291 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on my research it seems to be a logo of the Japan Audio Society. Given the examples at COM:TOO Japan, I think this falls below the threshold of originality in that jurisdiction. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio. Looks old, is it PD. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Per author request SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: In use, can this be replaced with anything? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- I uploaded by mistake. The light colours isn't adopted until 1974. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Rosenzweig τ 13:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Second attempt. Per request of uploader. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Not used. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Use of several images without source information. Unclear licence status. GeorgHH • talk 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Youtube doesn't mean this is licensed correctly. Uploader is unlikely to be the content owner Evaders99 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Excessive white margins make this file useless as an image and the file type should ideally not be PDF. File:Auwers reaction 01.jpg from the same uploader addresses the problem, so this version is not needed. Marbletan (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Why is there a "Benedict Aguilar | Photography"? It looks suspicious to me. The user has also already uploaded copyrighted material in the past. As per the COM:PCP, I think this image should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, image taken from [1]. Veverve (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: since I have found an irrefutable proof of copyright violation, could you (or any other admin) proceed with the deletion? Had I found the copyrighted image before, I would have directly reported this image as copyvio. Veverve (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Appears copyright at source and https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ states non commercial use Kadı Message 19:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Painting does not depict the alleged subject, James Hemings CzarJobKhaya (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not the original uploader (that would be Lloll123), but you're right, the image depicts Hercules Posey, another enslaved Black chef from the American revolutionary period (there's also this book cover). No objection to either deleting or correcting the information. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Editing to add, a better reproduction of this painting appears at File:Gilbert Stuart - Portrait of George Washington's Cook.jpg so no need to keep this file. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Per source. Work realized by French officials is (sadly) never released under CC. Rhadamante (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio: Painting was made by british painter James E. McConnell (1903-1995) in 1964: https://bookpalace.com/acatalog/info_McConnellIncasLL.html Mayimbú (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Kleinbahn Klockow-Pasewalk. Die ehemalige KKP-Lok 1 (Orenstein & Koppel 3009 von 1908), ab 1950 als 99 4612 bezeichnet, am 24. Juni 1960 in Klockow.jpg
[edit],_ab_1950_als_99_4612_bezeichnet,_am_24._Juni_1960_in_Klockow.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_ab_1950_als_99_4612_bezeichnet,_am_24._Juni_1960_in_Klockow.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Eine polnische Lizenz für ein Bild, was 1960 in der DDR entstanden ist??? Gunnar1m (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Woraus genau geht hervor, wo das Bild entstanden ist? --Krd 14:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; not enough information to determine the copyright status; also a 1960 German photo cannot be in the PD because its author cannot have died over 70 years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 23:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
suspect copyright violation. see COM:TOYS butb we are lacking information like how old the toy is ?? Headlock0225 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 14:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Dubious rationale for PD - this is not two-dimensional, but three-dimensional object, so photographer's permission for the publication under a free license is also required, see COM:COIN 188.123.231.53 07:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Datei ist schon vorhanden als Transparent stripe.png Gisbert K (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 11:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Georgy Savitsky
[edit]Not PD until 2024. Georgy Konstantinovich Savitsky (1887—1949) worked during WWII, so pma 70+4, see COM:Russia.
Xunks (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of his work between January 1st between January 1, 1948 and January 1, 1952. So it's considered PD 5cawa (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- 5cawa, first of all, the evidence here on Commons must be provided by the uploader, see COM:EVID. But that's not even the point, but the fact that you write complete nonsense. Savitsky was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1942 for political posters and cartoons in the so called TASS Windows. --Xunks (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't even notice, how deep this nonsense is. See Commons:Russia#Durations: the work period, that gives 4 year extension, is not 1948-1952 (why???), but 1941-1945. --Xunks (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. As Xunks says, 1941-1945 is the period we have to look at to see if there is an applicable wartime extension and there is evidence that they worked during that period. Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:Russia the copyright protection is in this case 70+4 years pma, as the author worked in the period 1941-1945. As the author died 1949 the image must be deleted for now, but can be undeleted in 1949+75=2024. . --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Licence douteuse, possible copie de l'w:fr:L'Indépendant (Pyrénées-Orientales) (lien) Tylwyth Eldar (talk) 06:49, 7 November 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) 22:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
These images would appear to be promotional based on the links in each image. It seems likely that the uploader is connected to the website. In practice the source is all rights reserved too.
- File:Child Receives a Spiderman Balloon at Event by Yombu.png
- File:Child Holding a Spiderman Balloon at Children's Party by Yombu.jpg
- File:Balloon Artist twisting a Balloon for Children by Yombu.jpg
- File:Child Holding a Balloon at an Kids Party by Yombu.jpg
- File:Child Holding a Minion balloon at an Event.jpg
- File:A Children's Party Entertainer Twisting a Balloon for Children.jpg
- File:Child Holding a Balloon at an Event by Yombu. 01.jpg
- File:Entertainer Creating a Balloon for a Group of Kids by Yombu at a Birthday Party.jpg
- File:Balloon Twister at a Kids Birthday Party by Yombu.jpg
- File:Child with a Superwoman Face-paint by Yombu in Harlem.jpg
- File:Lion Face-paint by Yombu in Yonkers.jpg
- File:Lion Face-paint by Yombu in New York 01.jpg
- File:Tiger Face-paint by Yombu in New York.png
- File:Child with a Green Tiger Face-paint by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Ninja Turtle Face-paint by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Child with a Bunny Face-paint by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Flower Face-paint by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Spiderman Face-painting by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Child with a Winter Queen Face-paint by Yombu in New York.jpg
- File:Child with an Elsa Face-paint by Yombu in Queens.png
- File:Face-painter in action by Yombu in Brooklyn.jpg
- File:Sack Racing Kids Party Entertainers in the US by Yombu.png
Herby talk thyme 11:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Herby, my apologies I am new at this. I thought we had to link to original location of the images. I will edit them and remove all links. Thank you - Seth SethVanO (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SethVanO You should link to the original location of the images, but you need to do it differently. We can help you with that, but first you need to find some images that you are allowed to upload. You are not allowed to upload most images you find online. See Commons:Licensing and ask any questions at the copyright village pump. Brianjd (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Brian, thank you for the message. I read the article linked and understand it better now. The images were taken by photographers of my company over the last few years and given to us. But as I understand it from the article the Rights belong to the Author / Photographer. Thanks for clarifying. - Seth SethVanO (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SethVanO Do you mean that the photographers were employed by your company? Then it is likely that your company (not the photographers) owns the copyright. Of course, that does not mean that you own the copyright, although you may be able to upload them here on behalf of your company. (Be careful with that. Most Wikimedia projects require disclosure of paid editing, though not this one, and all prohibit advertising.) Brianjd (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Brian, thank you for the message. I read the article linked and understand it better now. The images were taken by photographers of my company over the last few years and given to us. But as I understand it from the article the Rights belong to the Author / Photographer. Thanks for clarifying. - Seth SethVanO (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SethVanO You should link to the original location of the images, but you need to do it differently. We can help you with that, but first you need to find some images that you are allowed to upload. You are not allowed to upload most images you find online. See Commons:Licensing and ask any questions at the copyright village pump. Brianjd (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Regrettably, the uploader did not respons to the last question. If you see this message, please respond on my talk page referencing this Deletion request. --Ellywa (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
We have better version about that file:Cuba single age population pyramid 2020.png. Taivo (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The SVG is easily editable and translatable, the PNG isn't. If we're going to delete one, it should be the PNG, but there's no harm in keeping both. Nosferattus (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Claimed CC license is not believable, though maybe PD-old-something may apply. Uploader is a Flickrwashing sockpuppet. Main account of uploader is also blocked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Allknowingroger If that should be retagged or deleted, then see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&offset=20220101133233%7CDinner_party_J_Elliott_%28358796507%29.jpg&user=Siloepic THis deletion request continues Commons:Deletion requests/File:As well as can be expected .- J .Elliott (336780142).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Man sits in his 1916 Buick on the side of the road (14050470659).jpg
- File:Men standing next to their parade cars (14243964115).jpg
- File:Man stands silhouetted on a cliff against a cloudy sky (10476670103).jpg
- File:Cute little girl wearing a cap (14332147313).jpg
- File:Parade through the streets of San Francisco 5 (14231606186).jpg
- File:Little girl mowing the lawn (14317015781).jpg
- File:Little boy in shorts sitting on the porch (14133682468).jpg
- File:Little flower girls at a wedding 1 (14142071577).jpg
- File:Little flower girls at a wedding 2 (14328596145).jpg
- File:Man being pulled in a rickshaw by a native in costume (14358673203).jpg
- File:Photo strip portrait of a well--dressed man (14142077587).jpg
- File:Parade through the streets of San Francisco 4 (14231603726).jpg
- File:Young man reading The Saturday Evening Post (14211385649).jpg
- File:Well-dressed man and woman stand next to a mountain road. (14446924673).jpg
- File:Dinner party J Elliott (358796507).jpg
- File:Animals soldat (336771374).jpg
- File:Fibe weeks after marriage. J .Eliott (366371196).jpg
- File:Stolen Moments (340992676).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe all their uploads should be nominated for deletion as uploads of flickrwashing banned sock of banned account? Or it is not a sufficient reason on its own? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The stereo images as PD-EU.
- File:Fibe weeks after marriage. J .Eliott (366371196).jpg
- File:Stolen Moments (340992676).jpg
- File:Dinner party J Elliott (358796507).jpg
- File:Animals soldat (336771374).jpg
- "Author" field at least needs to be changed - in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fibe_weeks_after_marriage._J_.Eliott_(366371196).jpg for example "Anna" is not the author. And how we know that it was made "circa 1900"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep And change to PD-old-whatever. I looked through these and from what I can tell they were all taken pre-1927 or whenever the legal PD-old date is. Unfortunately uploaders don't usually know the differences in the copyrights. So they just pick the CC license as the default. It just happened with a bunch of postcards from Flikr that someone uploaded. I can understand why they would be nominated for deletion considering the users history though. That said, a few might be questionable like Young man reading The Saturday Evening Post (14211385649).jpg and File:Well-dressed man and woman stand next to a mountain road. (14446924673).jpg, but in those cases I think it would be responsible to keep them anyway since we don't know who the photographers are and just add whatever the template for non-copyrighted works after 1927 is. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted most, some were dated around 1940's. We need evidence of the age/publication date of the photos to be able to apply a PD license. The 3 stereo photos published by J. Elliot are clearly PD, per https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw293519/Turkish-Lady-and-Gentleman?LinkID=mp163895&role=art&rNo=0, published in the 1860's or even earlier. So these 3 can be kept. The other stereo photo is unclear. --Ellywa (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
There is already an existing Category:Natural gas in Israel. Not sure why this was red-linked, but when created, it has made a circular reference.
- Deleted Category talk:Natural gas in Israel as requested, no usefull content. Ellywa (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
File:PTC 220 MHz Radio- Union Pacific Locomotive 5802 GE C44-9-AC-CTE Locomotive Noise Test Battery Report, June 2012 - DPLA - a614136d0d964d8a2e28c68e2cc5075e.pdf
[edit]Metadata is wrong - Actual report is dated 2012, and the license on page 2 conflicts with the PD claim made. Delete and re-evaluate based on the license actually in the report. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- The metadata is not wrong, per se, but didn't get formatted well. It's stating in the catalog record that the inclusive dates for the series are 1967-2020. The specific date for this report is not in the date field, though it is correct in the title.
I am not sure what the source of conflict is, in terms of copyright. The public domain claim is being made by the US Government itself, which is uploading the file itself (via a partnership). It is often the case that archival records may have outdated or incorrect copyright notices, which are reviewed by the archivist in assessing the rights before making the rights statement. The National Archives metadata should be the source of authority, not the other way around. Dominic (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) - Page 2 of the actual PDF says - "(C) 2012 Metrocomm LLC. All Rights Reserved." that's what's in conflict with PD claim. Whether that's a valid notice , given the federal funding would be related. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- My point was that, just as with any historical copyright notice, that was part of the object when it was assessed by the archivist who made the public domain determination. You're treating it like this is a "conflict" as if the National Archives is unaware of the text of the document. But copyright notices on original objects are always possibly erroneous, expired, transferred, etc. It's one thing if Commons' assessment conflicts with a file source. In this case, Commons is following the source of authority. Dominic (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- On copyright, essentially all archives disclaim liability for their rights assessment so their statement on that issue is a mere one datum rather than the authority. We have no idea how thorough or individual their assessment was in this case: it is very much likely that a librarian (rather than lawyer) has looked at a whole collection (not each item in it) and said "Yeah, that looks like it's from a federal agency so so let's just call it PD for now". In this particular case, if they have actually made an individualised assessment they have done so based on facts not in evidence, because the available evidence quite obviously makes that PD claim erroneous. Xover (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am well aware of how archives work, considering I worked for many years at the National Archives running their Wikimedia upload project, and worked with them on this upload. I would dispute the suggestion that the institution that preserves these records—and the professionals who are employed to do the work of describing them, including their rights, for the public—are not the authority on them just because they have a completely standard disclaimer. You are making a lot of assumptions about how and why this conclusion was reached, and claiming, with no actual knowledge, that they didn't do their due diligence. You know, the NARA contact info for the reference archivist is on every page of their catalog. If someone wanted to double-check if this was an error or not, they could ask, instead of starting a deletion discussion and speculating. I can already tell you that one of your speculations is easily proven wrong, if you had checked, since the series this comes from is not all described as "unrestricted", but some are indeed marked as copyrighted, which implies individual decisions are made. Your last point is a good one. Dominic (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- On copyright, essentially all archives disclaim liability for their rights assessment so their statement on that issue is a mere one datum rather than the authority. We have no idea how thorough or individual their assessment was in this case: it is very much likely that a librarian (rather than lawyer) has looked at a whole collection (not each item in it) and said "Yeah, that looks like it's from a federal agency so so let's just call it PD for now". In this particular case, if they have actually made an individualised assessment they have done so based on facts not in evidence, because the available evidence quite obviously makes that PD claim erroneous. Xover (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- My point was that, just as with any historical copyright notice, that was part of the object when it was assessed by the archivist who made the public domain determination. You're treating it like this is a "conflict" as if the National Archives is unaware of the text of the document. But copyright notices on original objects are always possibly erroneous, expired, transferred, etc. It's one thing if Commons' assessment conflicts with a file source. In this case, Commons is following the source of authority. Dominic (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Despite the copyright notice, this work is
PD-USGov. As the work (p. 2) received federal funding, it’s in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) - Delete. *sigh* Federal funding does not ipso facto lead to public domain status. And making a document available to be seen by the public (for example by hosting it in an archive or on a web site) does not magically confer public domain status. As the document itself says on p. 2 of the PDF, the US Federal Government has entered into a contract with a private entity to perform some work, of which the production of this report was a part, in exchange for some partial or complete funding of the work. That contract stipulates that the US government get a non-exclusive license to use the report for some limited purposes, but the copyright remains with the contracted party. In particular, the government has not secured for itself the right to relicense the document. So the government can do a lot of the things we wish our reusers to be able to do, and retain copyright (modulo the PD-USGov exemption) in their changes, but nobody else can. In fact, we can't even host the work, much less license our reusers to do anything at all with it.The National Archives, like all other such institutions, explicitly disclaim responsibility for copyright determination (the organization that has made this Item available makes no warranties about the Item and cannot guarantee the accuracy of this Rights Statement. You are responsible for your own use.), and in this particular case, as a branch of the government, they are covered by the same contractual clause as the rest of the government: they can host it and make it available to the public, but they cannot relicense it. --Xover (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I replied more above, but I also just have to point out the irony here of you, a random Internet commenter, accusing the archivists, who have the original document that was transferred to them from the agency, as well as more information and training than you, of magical thinking—all while making very basic misinterpretations of that language in the document. The statement you are reading actually says "The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf" the right to "distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly", and you state the exact opposite, that we couldn't even host it. Dominic (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- We are not the government, nor are we acting on their behalf. We have no license from the copyright holder, nor does the government have a license with the copyright holder to relicense the work to us under compatible terms. In other words, the statement you are quoting says exactly what I am saying. And if you take into account the whole text (including the "Ownership" section just below) it becomes even clearer.PS. I'm not sure why you're white knighting the NARAs archivists. I have not mentioned them directly at all, just rebutted the arguments made by another "random Internet commenter" that the mere presence of federal funding or existence of a copy of a work in a federally funded archive somehow makes it public domain under the government works exception (which, as you yourself point out above, is nonsense). To the degree I have said anything that directly touch on them at all, it is that we simply do not know what specific determinations they have made in this individual case (and that was in a different comment). Xover (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I replied more above, but I also just have to point out the irony here of you, a random Internet commenter, accusing the archivists, who have the original document that was transferred to them from the agency, as well as more information and training than you, of magical thinking—all while making very basic misinterpretations of that language in the document. The statement you are reading actually says "The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf" the right to "distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly", and you state the exact opposite, that we couldn't even host it. Dominic (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete To be {{PD-USGov}}, a work must be "work of the United States Government", which is defined as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". 17 USC §§ 101, 105. This report is not "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government", so it is not {{PD-USGov}}. There is no free license granted in the report to us. So this file should be deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of Mdaniels5757. --Ellywa (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)