Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/11/13
 |
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}
_(2).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}
_Matis.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_RP-P-2010-221-905.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/files storage. Not used.
- File:Udvaboni Photos.jpg
- File:Founder UBC.tif
- File:Udvaboni01.jpg
- File:Udvaboni.png
- File:Mushahid.jpg
- File:Mushahid mojumder.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Anogenyogan68 Anogenyogan68 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
nakonec obrázek není nikde použit ... Miloš Křivan (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Billinghurst. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
User:INeverCry Anogenyogan68 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
File:The Ponds School.jpg Anogenyogan68 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:Karthik (singer).jpg Anogenyogan68 (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Screenshot. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I uploaded it by mistake VIGNESHWARAN PONNUSAMY (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Invalid Name Prajwal Gowda 🧿 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, bad name is not a reason to delete anything, because we can rename files. Deleted as copyright violation: small photo without metadata, own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of Squishmallows that fails Commons:TOYS QuercusJuglans (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted modern character design toy. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo from "Random website" and photographer is unknown, shown date is upload date not original date Robotje (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Only meaningful content is vulgar gibberish Dronebogus (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
User page Blanked -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Image from Google Street View Condor3d (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aquiladeus16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work as claimed, some have author name in exif, most don't have exif. PCP
- File:Bthisguy.jpg
- File:Athisguy.png
- File:Agermangerman.jpg
- File:Beidlemann.jpg
- File:Aswellesley.png
- File:Asaface.png
Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aquiladeus16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused fictitious maps, diagrams, symbols.
- File:Chinamap123.png
- File:Frenchmaastricht treaty.png
- File:1992ukelectionmap.png
- File:1transnistria.png
- File:Battle of bingium.png
- File:Ottomanchamberofdeputies1918.png
- File:Ukparliament1918elections.png
- File:2mapofscotland.png
- File:French parliament 1917.png
- File:Flagofdanubia.png
- File:Acoatofarms.png
- File:Sodern flag.png
- File:Map of Sodern.jpg
- File:Centralasiamaprepublic.png
- File:Swedish electionsmap.png
- File:Electoralmapof1916.png
- File:2parliamentofalbion.png
- File:4mapsofalbion.png
- File:2mapofsweden.png
- File:1flagofsweden.png
- File:Amishigama.jpg
- File:Agermanmap.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake VIGNESHWARAN PONNUSAMY (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Olive Sharma Rajbansi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader is a sock of globally locked Anup Rajbanshi. Images are of low-quality and unlikely that uploader is creator and copyright holder.
- File:Rajendra Prasad Pandey.jpg
- File:Jeevan Shahi.jpg
- File:Kul Prasad KC.jpg
- File:Trilochan Bhatta.jpg
- File:Rajendra Kumar Rai.jpg
Njd-de (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all files already deleted by Tulsi. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata. Per en:User talk:Spanwar the file was originally uploaded without source. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I noticed this deletion request. The image while small and poor quality is used on several pages. One version of the image is held by the Glenbow Archives (CU1155099) dated February 22, 1947 and listed as "Public Domain". Caddyshack01 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept, thank you! I found correct license and I can withdraw the request. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nova a.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draco nebula.gif - it is not image from NASA but from ROSAT (german satellite), so "This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA" cannot be used - maybe other licencing is possible Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding File:Rosat_0.75kev_diffuse_background_map.gif: I've added this "Credit: The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Snowden et al. 1995, ApJ, 454, 643" to the article on WikiPedia where the image appears. There is no copyright notification at the bottom of the page, url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/diffuse_figure3.html where the image appears indicating that the image is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you like I will try to get in touch with Snowden for specific permission for the image to be here. I don't know if this applies to The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics or not since they probably funded Snowden. I did this with File:Draco nebula.gif; i.e., got permission from the originators (authors) and re-uploaded the image. What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per NASA website Jcb (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fabian RRRR as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author is Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, not NASA. Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've sent an email to Dr. Hannelore Hämmerle, the Press Officer for The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, to find out the status of both images: File:Rosat 0.75kev diffuse background map.gif and File:Rosat 0.25kev diffuse background map.gif regarding Public Domain. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've received a response from Dr. Hannelore Hämmerle: "as long as Credit is given for MPE, we normally allow use of our material. We only restrict/deny it, if it is used in an advertorial or commercial context (educational/science books excluded).
- I'm not familiar with USA fairuse, but it is definitely not public domain." I will upload File:Rosat 0.75kev diffuse background map.gif to Wikiversity under USA fairuse. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://mpp.mn/ and does not fit any of the licensing categories (a logo is not a coat of arms) Yann (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per my tag and the deletion of copyvio File:Mongolian peoples party logo.svg. A logo is not a coat of arms, so {{PD-Mongolia-exempt}} doesn't fit. The same arguments also apply to File:Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party Logo.svg, also uploaded by FelipeRev. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the licence tag is incorrect, it is a usual {{PD-shape}} case, so it can be kept along as thousands of other similar logos.--Antemister (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The MPP website makes a copyright claim. The logo has some simple shapes, but it is not just simple geometry, so it is outside of {{PD-Shape}}. Without some free license, it does not belong on Commons. Glrx (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a simple logo. Just try to describe, which geometrical figures the logo consists of! Taivo (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Small images without EXIF data, user with bad history, unlikely to be own works.
- File:2022 Porsche Cayenne Coupé.jpg
- File:2022 Porsche Macan GTS.jpg
- File:2022 Mercedes-AMG GLE 53 4MATIC+.jpg
- File:2021 Land Rover Discovery Sport silver.jpg
- File:2019 Ford Endura rear.jpg
- File:2019 Ford Endura.jpg
- File:2021 Tesla Model 3 EV.jpg
- File:2022 Toyota Land Cruiser ZX Sahara.jpg
- File:2015 Holden Commodore SSV.jpg
- File:2022 Mercedes-AMG GLE 53 Coupé.jpg
Yann (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete all and block uploader indefinitely. The Porsche Macan image can be found here, and there are other images of the same vehicle easily found all over automotive news/review websites. It is unquestionably a copyright violation.
There should be no need to investigate the others. The uploader is a serial copyright violator; the images are taken in an array of different countries as evidenced by their registration plates so these would logically all be copyright violations as well. --Sable232 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry just found them on Flickr . Didn’t know they were on articles MrDavr (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Then why do you pretend they are your own works? Yann (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:2021 Tesla Model 3 EV.jpg, which has a free CC license, not sure about File:2021 Land Rover Discovery Sport silver.jpg, Delete all others as copyvio. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Small images without EXIF data, user blocked for copyvios, unlikely to be own works.
- File:2012 Bugatti Veyron Rembrandt.jpg
- File:2021 ISUZU D-Max front.jpg
- File:2019 Ford Endura (rear).jpg 01.jpg
- File:2019 Ford Endura (front).jpg
- File:2016 Mitsubishi Pajero 3 door.jpg
- File:2017 Range Rover Vogue.jpg
.jpg_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete all. The Veyron image was stolen from [1]. The two Ford Endura images are watermarked, proving that they are copyright violations. The Mitusbishi Pajero image was stolen from [2], and the Range Rover photo was stolen from [3]. I wasn't able to readily find the D-Max image, but the preponderance of evidence is that it is also a copyright violation. --Sable232 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
copyvio (probably) Mateus2019 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
derivative work Trade (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 11:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Redirection inutile / Useless redirection Wyslijp16 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FR#Leaving redirects. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
uploaded accidentally Jacobjrankin (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Fails COM:EDUSE. Depicts an unidentified person but claims the subject is the United Nations Charter, which is obviously incorrect. I considered moving, but realised that there was no title to move to that would make any more sense than the current one ("random_person5386.jpg" wouldn't be much help). No educational value. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Image with obviously incorrect subject that appears to have been created by a sock. See [4]. 2601:647:5800:4D2:8CC2:482F:97D0:56AB 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Image without EXIF likely sourced from television broadcast, not own work Yeeno (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I was watching the game this was taken on. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Meme/joke image, unused CzarJobKhaya (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotion of hoax/fringe theory, I can find no notable information on this person or her chemist friend. Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted Soumendrak (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
These text/PDF files are all either copyvios or out of scope, or both.
- File:علامہ اقبال کی شاعری میں ڈانٹیہ عنصر.pdf
- File:E3 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:E2 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:5 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:4 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:6 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:1 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:2AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
- File:3 AZAD DISCOURS FORUM DEPT OF URDU MANUU RULE.png
Rosenzweig τ 11:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Trade (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
File metadata shows that every single one of these files came from Facebook. They are therefore likely copyvios and should be deleted per the precautionary principle.
- File:Couple park.jpg
- File:School of commerce inside.jpg
- File:Aerial view of psgcas.jpg
- File:Lovers park.jpg
- File:School of commerce.jpg
- File:Library hall.jpg
- File:Old GRD Audi.jpg
- File:Indoor stadium.jpg
- File:G-Block Park.jpg
- File:College road.jpg
- File:Back canteen.jpg
- File:B block old.jpg
- File:Gateway 16.jpg
- File:Couples park.jpg
- File:Indoor stadium(1).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 13:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality personal drawing, out of COM:SCOPE Belbury (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
no CC or PD indication at the source site (https://uml.lodz.pl/dla-mieszkancow/zabytki/lapidarium/o-lapidarium/historia-miejsca/) Panek (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vampire in Venice
[edit]Not PD in the United States, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cannibal Holocaust.
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Christopher Plummer.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Eye.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Final scene.png
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski & De Rossi.png
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski & Knecht.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski & Plummer.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski arrives in Venice.png
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski closeup.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski glare.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski stare.jpg
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Kinski with gore.png
- File:Nosferatu a Venezia (1988) Plummer with a crucifix.jpg
_Christopher_Plummer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eye.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Final_scene.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_%26_De_Rossi.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_%26_Knecht.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_%26_Plummer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_arrives_in_Venice.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_closeup.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_glare.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_stare.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kinski_with_gore.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Plummer_with_a_crucifix.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
"never in life or history does this show a map of Poland. It is a fake map of Poland + Kaliningrad Oblast + parts of West Ukraine. That looks a lot like Russian provocation" per this edit. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: No realistic educational value Headlock0225 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: No realistic educational value Headlock0225 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 31.191.238.52 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio|source=www.postemobile.it. But probably below [[COM:TOO Italy]? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Italian COM:TOO law, but I would think so. Text logo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
cpyright violation in the Italian law VadErs88 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @VadErs88 I don’t see anything in that article about TOO; this file is surely below TOO. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: PD-textlogo. --Kadı Message 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
file not in use, possible copyright infringement from the official Website Epicamused (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, for the third time, certainly falls under COM:TOO, why do people keep renominating this? - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: simple text, not copyrightable, as already explained. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
self promotion image for wikidata Lectrician1 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation; taken from the Skytrax website. 2001:A61:109D:F101:D165:4914:EB9A:CE 08:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- The Skytrax website is given as source (and attributed), so no problem with that. Is there some author or copyright info on the image over there? If not, or if contradicts the info here, that's the problem. –LPfi (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, the problem is obvious when you click the link and look at the bottom of the page: "© 2022 Skytrax. All rights reserved."
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem like an own work. Copied from https://2gis.ru/krasnodar/gallery/firm/3237490513161315/photoId/30258560076836641.The source published the file much earlier that it was uploaded. Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Cropped from https://2gis.ru/ufa/gallery/geo/2393276036415600/photoId/30258560077988720/ Does not look like an own work/ Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem like an own work. Copied from https://2gis.ru/ufa/gallery/geo/2393276036415600/photoId/30258560077988725.The source published the file much earlier that it was uploaded. Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Pre-existing, uncredited stock photo (example other usage https://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0883474859) Belbury (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
From https://www.flickr.com/photos/dccentralkitchen/52310501788/, work of Getty Images. Copyright status is unclear since it was created and managed by Getty Images. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
No copyright information given at source listed. Not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in France. Architect Michel Virlogeux is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the Maldives A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The software is published under proprietary license. VRT-permission from producing company is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 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) 16:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 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 France A1Cafel (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a still image from a video, original source is required to verify copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Small image, no EXIF data, not notable people, out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Dies ist mein Haus und wurde ohne jeglichen Hinweis photographiert und veröffentlicht. Dieses Foto wurde zudem Auf dem Grundstück gemacht. 80.131.228.50 04:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion, obviously created from outside the fence. --Krd 05:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ManzarPhaloree (talk · contribs)
[edit]Book covers, possibly copyrighted artwork.
- File:Asas e adillah.jpg
- File:Wali e lolak.jpg
- File:Mah e hira.jpg
- File:Arham e aalam ارحمِ عالم غیرمنقوط نعت.jpg
Belbury (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
no encyclopedic use Darrelljon (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
no encyclopedic use Darrelljon (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Copie d'écran d'une application smartphone ? - voir : https://www.fly-wi.com/ S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexisroberts03 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All are copyrighted artworks in National Gallery of Jamaica, permission from the painters is required.
- File:We all Live Under the same Sky by Camille Chedda.jpg
- File:Same Sky by Camille Chedda.jpg
- File:We all Live Under the same Sky Camille Chedda closeup.jpg
- File:We all Live Under the same Sky Camille Chedda.jpg
- File:Bushwacked - Omari Ra.jpg
- File:We all Live Under the same Sky - Camille Chedda.jpg
- File:Wave Files - Ricardo Edwards.jpg
- File:Bushwacked-Omari-Ra.svg
A1Cafel (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ouzo
[edit]Derivatives, COM:PACKAGING.
- File:Ouzo 2ltr.jpeg
- File:Ouzo frantzeskos Samos.jpg
- File:Ouzo katsarou.jpg
- File:Ouzo ouzo.JPG
- File:Ouzobottle.JPG
- File:Verschillende soorten ouzo (cropped) Veto.jpg
_Veto.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Xunks (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
containing a private picture Abdul harits (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
_Matis.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Matis.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative, COM:PACKAGING. Xunks (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
_Matis.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
_Matis.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused map and diagram. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
this is a duplicate Stephane szyller (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I changed my mind, please keep it as I uploaded another photo, sorry, I learn, cheers Stephane szyller (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. --Krd 06:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AYUKI24424 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used or used in vanity draft.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, garbage title and description -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you. However, in spite of that, this image might be useful in providing an example of traditional clothing from somewhere. We just need more information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no description, no categories, not usable. --Krd 05:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional material for selling on a commercial website. Not in scope. One file of only two uploaded by this account- both files are promotional only. Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional material for selling on a commercial website. Not in scope. One file of only two uploaded by this account- both files are promotional only. Ooligan (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an old photo and I don't want to publish it Siamak.omrani (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Poor-quality image, little of interest or usefulness going on. Could be cropped to show CFL in light fitting, but that'd show how blurry and low quality it was and we have numerous better examples. Ubcule (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution image; no exif data; unknown source. This is not a bust of the Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus, but the Glyptothek Munich bust of emperor Nero. Pasicles (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Redirection inutile / Useless redirection Wyslijp16 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Serves no purpose other than to add the border for South Sudan (missing in the original, i.e. File:SouthOssetiaorthographicprojection.svg) and an imaginary border in Germany. 180app (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I fixed the weird Germany border by copying the SVG file, but "Serves no purpose" isn't a valid reason for deletion as the two files aren't duplicates visually. Even if they were duplicates, it still isn't a valid reason; you'd just add the supercede template. Yue🌙 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 07:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Invalid licensing CzarJobKhaya (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
self promotion image for wikidata Lectrician1 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Not free image. User said that he is not author of this foto. Obviously incorrect license. Even this foto was published in 1972 without name of the author - it means that it is still not in PD because 70 years for copyright are not passed. Kursant504 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- also file:Montaje Valdecaballeros.png
Collages need source and license for every used image. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Knuth Braun (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Belbury (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- August der Starke was born in 1670 according to the information in that file, and of course Arthur Conan Doyle was a 19th-century author. The link isn't working, but is there a satisfactory way to determine whether these images are in the public domain that doesn't involve a contributor who was active only for a brief period in 2012? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- They both look like modern 20th century objects to me. We need to be able to show that they're much older than that, or that the linked website both made the figures and released their designs into the public domain. I haven't been able to confirm either from archive.org copies of their site, and it does seem unlikely that a toy company would choose to do the latter. Belbury (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Belbury: The objects may be 20th-century, but if they are likenesses of images that are in the public domain, are photos of them in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know whether close copies of public domain artworks automatically inherit that status (if I paint a copy of an old Sidney Paget illustration of Holmes, even quite closely, surely I can choose how to licence my work?), but the toy doll likenesses here seem very far removed from the artwork, if any, that inspired them. Belbury (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- If a painting can be deleted from Commons because it's a slightly varied copy of a photo, as happened recently, why aren't these dolls PD as copies of PD images? Can we have it both ways? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- We can, as in both cases copyright of the original work and the modern modification is relevant, and we need permission for both. --Krd 07:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Belbury: The objects may be 20th-century, but if they are likenesses of images that are in the public domain, are photos of them in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- August der Starke was born in 1670 according to the information in that file, and of course Arthur Conan Doyle was a 19th-century author. The link isn't working, but is there a satisfactory way to determine whether these images are in the public domain that doesn't involve a contributor who was active only for a brief period in 2012? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture from Facebook with different dates, previously on Facebook (5 October for Facebook and 5 November for Commons), usage of Commons as personal space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please delet this photo because i am in this photo and it has been taken without my permission. 2A02:1210:94B4:6900:C9BD:4D0F:20CE:BF7F 18:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion, no one's face is shown, I tagged it {{Personality}} instead. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)- Speedy keep The photo barely shows a person at all, let alone a face or other obvious identification, and the nominator is anonymous. Brianjd (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:SCOPE, as a text-only bitmap. The source is a PD-USGov video, which would be fine of course, but not sure what use the textual description screen at the beginning of the video serves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: Fictional maps and symbols
- File:Europe-UKJE (orthographic projection).png
- File:Jedermannslandmap.png
- File:Brasao de Armas de Sipat 1.png
- File:11 Bandeira do Reino Unido de Jedermannsland e Euro-Ásia de 1959 até 1961.png
- File:Bandeira do reino unido de Jedermannsland.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Enyavar (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 10:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel This image and the similar image Kallmann Syndrome Patient.jpg are the only nude images in the category Kallmann syndrome. If this category is accurate, then these files definitely need to be kept. Brianjd (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Brianjd. --Strakhov (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Georgia Aquarium
[edit]Main subjects are the people, not the aquarium. Out of scope.
- File:Aquarium (4476725461).jpg
- File:GaAquarimpettingtank.jpg
- File:Georgia Aquarium (4662883067).jpg
- File:Georgia Aquarium (4663503512).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:GaAquarimpettingtank.jpg and File:Georgia Aquarium (4663503512).jpg and delete the other two. The first is in use and does a good job illustrating a touch tank. The second doesn't really feature any particular person, but the presence of the crowd helps give a sense of scale to the large, unusually-shaped tank. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: some deleted, some kept. Per IronGargoyle. --Strakhov (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
El Cubano 153 uploads
[edit]- File:Mid-November Blizzard (Alegandra) 2022 track.jpg
- File:Cickis 2022 track.jpg
- File:Nicole 2022 track.jpg
- File:Bans 2022 track.jpg
- File:Afefe 2022 track.jpg
- File:El Cubano 153; Afefe 2022 track.jpg
- File:Tropical Wave 2-11-2022 Track.jpg
- File:Bogdan 2022 track mejored.jpg
- File:Bettina 2022 track mejored.jpg
- File:Ana 2022 track (Europe) mejored.jpg
- File:Dino 2022 track cubano 153 version.png
_2022_track.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_mejored.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All of these track maps are either original research or just plain false. This editor has been writing about fictitious storms or fictionalized accounts of real storms on the English Wikipedia, and a lot of these tracks have been used to support those fictionalizations. See w:en:Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#2022–23 European Windstorm Season/Tracks and the below section; w:en:WP:ANI#Persistent disruption at Cumulonimbus and well beyond; and w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Cubano 153 for more information. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 22:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment This isn't Wikipedia, so original research is perfectly fine. Which of these maps are original research, Dylan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Well, for starters, File:Nicole 2022 track.jpg is an incorrect version of the track of Hurricane Nicole from last week; the reliable, official track can be viewed here. Alegandra seems to be a misspelling of Alejandra, The Weather Channel's unofficial name for an early-season blizzard which struck the Midwest United States, but it is virtually impossible to tell if the storm system depicted in the aforelinked section is along the track provided by El Cubano 153. As for Cickus, Bans, and Afefe... there have been no storms with any of those names. (The first five or six files in this nomination, as far as I can tell, were created for this fictitious user subpage [ENWP admins only; the page was deleted last night per a deletion request which I had submitted].) One of the names (Afefe, IIRC) was given to what wasn't even a storm system in its own right, but instead a rainband of the real-life Hurricane Nicole. The final four files are colorizations of tracks made by another user (see the European windstorm season article talk page linked in the nomination) who used location data from the Free University of Berlin, but the original tracks lack wind speed data; El Cubano 153 used data from the app Windy, which uses model run initializations, and is therefore unreliable. Lastly, the tropical wave for which File:Tropical Wave 2-11-2022 Track.jpg was created did seem to exist in some form, as the track image makes apparent that the system was in the southwestern Caribbean Sea, which is confirmed by a contemporary Tropical Weather Outlook from the National Hurricane Center; but the wave doesn't seem to have been officially tracked, which makes pinpointing its "center" (?) dubious, and the track image itself is of such low quality that I find it hard to believe that it would be of use to any reader or viewer. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. None of that sounds like original research. Why did you say it could be? Original research is not something to use as an epithet but is what advances human civilization, especially when it's in the form of scientific research. In the future, if all of the files are dubious or erroneous, please say that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Question The first five or six images appear to be storm tracks drawn onto Google Maps. Would that be a copyright issue?
- I would also favor deletion of File:Tropical Wave 2-11-2022 Track.jpg. It's so blurry as to be basically unusable. It looks like the uploader photographed their computer screen. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Half of them aren't real and nowhere on them they say they aren't real (WP:HOAX). The other half have an unreliable or no source for the data which is problem as Cubano wanted them to be on an article (proven here). RandomInfinity17 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete images 2-6 (as well as the blurry one, which I already mention) at least, as they appear to be for made-up systems and a fictionalized version of Hurricane Nicole that are not advertised as such. That sort of stuff might belong on the Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki, but not here. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Both of the Afefe tracks, the "Bans" track, and "Cickis" track falls under "Original Research" and are hypothetical no Tropical Waves, Tropical Cyclones, or Extratropical Cyclones were given those names in the real world; the Alejandra track was created from Google Maps plus Alejandra didn't go that far north up into Canada if you look at this map Wpc Surface Analysis and go back to the 9-11th of November when the storm was active, the low that was Alejandra stayed below the Canada-United States Border and was centered around North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin area, and the European Windstorm tracks that this user created aka the Bogdan and Bettina tracks looks like they copied RandomInfinity17's track map and colored the triangles those storm's true intensities are unknown, so those colors that El Cubano put on their copied track map more than likely falls under "Orginial Research" also the rest of tracks that I didn't mention were also created with Google Maps and probably is a copyright violation there's a lot of problems with these track maps. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Ikan Kekek Aren't those European windstorm track maps that El Cubano copied and colored in fall under "Original Research" though even though this discussion is on Commons, the colors are intended to represent the sustained wind intensity of the storm like tropical cyclones on their track maps, but there aren't any sources that I can find anywhere that shows sustained winds from those European Windstorms only wind gust that's probably why the legitimate storm tracks on 2022-23 European windstorm season page are gray. It's hard to get sustained wind data on those storm's since they're outside NOAA's forecasted area. It would be misleading to readers if that user had put those track maps on the 2022-23 European windstorm season page which by the looks of it it was intended to be used on that page if it wasn't that user wouldn't have created the copied Bogdan and Bettina tracks and uploaded to Commons.
- Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Understood completely. I haven't rechecked, but I believe none of these files are in use? If so, no problem with deleting them on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: File:Tropical Wave 2-11-2022 Track.jpg is currently in use at W:Draft:2022–23 Caribbean Storm Season, but that page has been nominated for deletion and more than likely will be deleted. The uploader of these files, who created the draft, has been indefinitely blocked on both the English and Spanish Wikis for disruption and sockpuppetry. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Good enough. I think we can delete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments above. Caused disruption on multiple wikis and copyright issues. funplussmart (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not wish to have this photo in Wikimedia. I never gave permission for that. 2A02:1810:A595:E00:CD67:D49A:8AF7:DB6B 09:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It looks to me like the upload to Flickr is the problem. Have you complained to the uploader there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not wish to have this photo in Wikimedia. I never gave permission for that. Viona.ielegems (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Please contact with Flickr. We have nothing to do here. --Kadı Message 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Incompatible Licence on Flickr. The licence on Flickr is NC-ND which is incompatible with Commons licencing. Furthermore, the image was uploaded by a bot and thereafter reviewed by a malfunctioning bot which is now blocked. These aspects were never considered at the previous DRs. Since the licence controversy on Flicker has been resolved, either the corresponding change NC-ND is made at the licence over here, or else the file is deleted. NB: The event is in Germany,and the uploader Slick-o-Bot is running on a data centre in Germany. SinghIsFxing (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg for extensive debate around these issues, involving another image depicting the same subject. Brianjd (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The issue over there is quite different. Here it is about an NC-ND Flickr licence which is incompatible with Commons licencing, and the plethora of malfunctioing Flickr mass upload bots which were all terminated by 2015. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
- @SinghIsFxing The file description indicates that it was license reviewed and, at the time, had a (irrevocable) CC BY 2.0 license. I don’t know what malfunctions the bot had, but I assume that the reviews are still valid; otherwise they should be removed. Brianjd (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage. Hence he seems to have corrected himself on Flickr for all his uploads. Hence Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently and this file cannot be kept on Commons.SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing This seems to be conflating personality rights and copyright issues, as already discussed at the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brianjd No, this is a LICENCING issue which involves assignment of commercial rights by a person who himself never had the commercial exploitation rights. To take an example, if you buy a stolen car and the thief is caught then do you become the owner of the car or can morally sell it onwards to an innocent person ? SinghIsFxing (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is an interesting series of problems here (1) The photographer changes his licence on Flickr to NC-ND, (2) The FlickrReviewBot is admittedly malfunctioninhg and was stopped and (3) All mass Flickr uploads were stopped in 2015. All these circumstances combined need the retainers to prove that the present licence is correct and valid. Good Luck doing that. SinghIsFxing (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing I’m not responding to you anymore, until you can demonstrate that you have actually read the previous comments and provide specific responses to them. Brianjd (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage" - why? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently" - not really. They do not revoke earlier license, but maybe original license was tainted/invalid anyway. But there is no explanation why it would be Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing This seems to be conflating personality rights and copyright issues, as already discussed at the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage. Hence he seems to have corrected himself on Flickr for all his uploads. Hence Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently and this file cannot be kept on Commons.SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing The file description indicates that it was license reviewed and, at the time, had a (irrevocable) CC BY 2.0 license. I don’t know what malfunctions the bot had, but I assume that the reviews are still valid; otherwise they should be removed. Brianjd (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The issue over there is quite different. Here it is about an NC-ND Flickr licence which is incompatible with Commons licencing, and the plethora of malfunctioing Flickr mass upload bots which were all terminated by 2015. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
- Image was set to NC-ND before 2019, see https://web.archive.org/web/20190125215804/https://www.flickr.com/photos/soul_stealer/6600139665/ Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "either the corresponding change NC-ND is made at the licence over here, or else the file is deleted" - there is also a third possibility: we can and will keep file under CC-BY-2.0 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- " reviewed by a malfunctioning bot which is now blocked." bot was blocked for marking everything is failed. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlickreviewR Is there any indicator that bot had also accidents with falsely claiming that image is compatible? And that this file was under a different license? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- CC-BY-2.0 was probably tainted anyway because Flickr uploader did not have rights to commercial (German/Belgium) without consent. Nominator says here no permission was given to photographer. Flickr Uploader probably corrected himself by changing to NC-ND. We should also respect that change now that we are aware of it (it is also required in terms of the actual licence BTW because of the compulsory attribution clause) and amend our licence to NC-ND.
- You are correct the earlier licence is not revoked, but at the same time it needs to be refreshed in terms of the attribution clause. It turns on the reason the licence was amended on Flickr, if it was due to a mistake of the photographer then our licence is also tainted and we have a moral duty to inform subsequent reusers.
- Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless. It made no difference if it was a good attribution or a bad attribution, all of them were being approved.
- It is better to err on the side of caution and delete this file considering that the model is also asking for it saying she never gave permission for it to be uploaded to Wikimedia. The clear meaning is that she never consented to the image being publicly shared. The burden of proof now shifts onto the photographer or to the Slickbot operator for the image to be retained. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless." - can you link example edit? For example in this file was NOT approved. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- In the link you gave, it seems confirmed from this diff that the bot was malfunctioning when reviewed by a human. Also I can't be asked to prove a negative. That proof has to be given by the bot operator. SinghIsFxing (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- "CC-BY-2.0 was probably tainted anyway because Flickr uploader did not have rights to commercial (German/Belgium) without consent." what is the reason for this claim? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- That would be COM:CSCR#Belgium, although I personally would not agree with way it is (incorrectly) written in the Commons policy. SinghIsFxing (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless." - can you link example edit? For example in this file was NOT approved. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=119773083){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion and decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
COM:PCP: Unlikely to be an "own work" by the uploader unless they can provide a higher-resolution version that displays the watermark of the original revision in a readable form. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Bearbrick incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2021"
[edit]COM:TOYS surely
- File:Bearbrick cute.jpg
- File:Bearbrick basic.jpg
- File:Bearbrick artist.jpg
- File:Bearbrick horror.jpg
- File:Bearbrick jellybean 2.jpg
- File:Bearbrick.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE images displaying penis and vulvas, all are unlikely to be useful.
- File:Human vulva - 007.jpg
- File:Human vulva - 006a.jpg
- File:Human vulva - 002.jpg
- File:Human vulva - 005a.jpg
- File:Human vulva - 004a.jpg
- File:Human Erect Penis with testicles.jpg
- File:Vulva & anus.jpg
- File:Penis of the Year (2008 Hidden Beach Resort-2).JPG
- File:Penis of the Year (2008 Hidden Beach Resort-3).JPG
- File:Penis of the Year (2008 Hidden Beach Resort-1).JPG
- File:Human Penis an Scrotum of 51 year old Caucasian.JPG
- File:Human penis shaved natural sunlight.JPG
- File:Human penis shaved pubic.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 06:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
this photo is not a free license Михаил Семёнов 11:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
own work from 1950? copyvio. RZuo (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Certainly not impossible, but note that this is the user's only contribution to Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This photo needs permission from the photographer. There is no obvious reason to believe that the subject of the photograph is also the photographer. Htm (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- When I put the picture in commons it was possible to choose that I took the picture and/or I own the rights to the picture. In this case The photographer of this picture is the same that put this picture the commons so I own the rights of the picture. I didn't see any place where i should have put my name. WinstonK (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- To be more accurate the person who took the picture (me) I am the spouse of the man in the picture. If i have to put my name on it somewhere it did not ask it when i upploaded the picture. If I have tod do something diffrent please tell me what to do. =) WinstonK (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- When using Commons Upload Wizard, you have two choices, 1) either the uploader took the photograph or 2) the uploader did not take the photograph. It is very rare situation that the photographer is not also copyright holder. Photographer can give anyone right to use a photo. Usually photographer still is copyright holder and can upload photo into Commons. In Wikimedia Commons photographer is copyright holder by default. It really is confusing that the subject is author. This was not selfie. --Htm (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is this ok now or do I still have to do something? WinstonK (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, normally users who upload photos they have taken just publish photos with their username. Some users publish their real name too and some users don't publish their real name. So you say that User:WinstonK is a.k.a Niina Lähdesmäki. On the other hand in this file you have written author is Olavi Kandolin. It is confusing. Is user:WinstonK a joint user account? As you know, all Wikimedia user accounts are personal. -- Htm (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- So the picture is taken by me and I have given the licence to user Winston K so he is the owner of the licence. I have made my own Wikipedia account now but it should be enough if I give my licence to user WinstonK. If it is not ok then I can upload it myself but it seems useless if WinstonK owns the picture. It should be enough if in the information of the picture it says that I Niina Lähdesmäki took the picture but Winston K owns it. So he has every right to use it. NippeX1 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, normally users who upload photos they have taken just publish photos with their username. Some users publish their real name too and some users don't publish their real name. So you say that User:WinstonK is a.k.a Niina Lähdesmäki. On the other hand in this file you have written author is Olavi Kandolin. It is confusing. Is user:WinstonK a joint user account? As you know, all Wikimedia user accounts are personal. -- Htm (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is this ok now or do I still have to do something? WinstonK (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- When using Commons Upload Wizard, you have two choices, 1) either the uploader took the photograph or 2) the uploader did not take the photograph. It is very rare situation that the photographer is not also copyright holder. Photographer can give anyone right to use a photo. Usually photographer still is copyright holder and can upload photo into Commons. In Wikimedia Commons photographer is copyright holder by default. It really is confusing that the subject is author. This was not selfie. --Htm (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: there are 2 users above who claim to have taken the photo. This definitely needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
No permission of the original owner, as seen on the source, it's a disclosure of the photo (Divulgação/Orlando Brito), therefore there is nowhere a Creative Commons permission Paladinum2 (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Questionable US copyright because it shows a non-free threedimensional model. Taken in Austria. Aciarium (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Personality rights of depicted persons and not in project scope. Image-Improver Bonn (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant to #18. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Personality rights of depicted persons and not in project scope. Image-Improver Bonn (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see why it would be out of scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- But the persons are clearly identifiable (Commons:Personality rights). See also the other photos uploaded under the label Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018. In addition to the uselessness of many photos there (two extreme examples: File:Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018 - 13.jpg, File:Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018 - 47.jpg) about a third of these photos depict people in private circumstances. I think many of these photos should be deleted.--Image-Improver Bonn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's a public park, and nobody on those photos is doing anything wrong, so no harm done. Many thousands of photos of public parks are on Commons. However, the photos 46 and 48 from the series make 47 superfluous, and 16 makes 13 superfluous, so 13 and 47 can go. HendrixHammer (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- But the persons are clearly identifiable (Commons:Personality rights). See also the other photos uploaded under the label Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018. In addition to the uselessness of many photos there (two extreme examples: File:Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018 - 13.jpg, File:Meindorf Sportplatz im Sommer 2018 - 47.jpg) about a third of these photos depict people in private circumstances. I think many of these photos should be deleted.--Image-Improver Bonn (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: seems OK, just add {{Personality rights}} to file description. Deleted #13 and #47 as redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Plain wrong image: the M4 line has been finished for a long time. Likely the user took the original and only updated M5.We have alternative high-quality, correct images such as File:Metro București.svg to be used instead. Strainu (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Menshik1991 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Multiple reasons: 1 - small unused gif logo since 2012, out of scope 2 - likely copyvio (the title as from fotki.yandex.ru) 3 - derivative work 4 - no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago, extremely poor quality also
Юрий Д.К. (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
NO FOP in USA for 2D artworks. This is an artwork made by Hanksy. As we know who painted it, it should be considered as a legally painted mural, and no way to deny the painter's copyright 58.153.119.90 02:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete COM:MURALS generally refer to those are legally painted, regardless of knowing who is the artist or not. Hanksy is a notable street artist based in New York City, and we should respect his copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Why should it "be considered as a legally painted mural"? If the own of the property authorized, paid for, or consented to it's creation, it is. If not, it is unauthorized graffiti. The legal status is not determined by whether the perpetrator has been identified. I find it very unlikely that owners of valuable real estate would hire a graffitist to paint an image of feces and flies on their property. If Anon has more information regarding any legal authorization by the property owner, please provide it. Otherwise, it is clearly graffiti, not a "legally painted mural". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Question The artwork is located at the Jarmulowsky Bank Building. Maybe we can contact with the owner to see whether they allowed Hanksy to make this artwork or not? --A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot follow the arguments in COM:GRAFFITI. This clearly is artwork, so it is copyright protected, regardless if the creator is known, wants to make use of it, and/or may or may not be able to prove it. --Krd 07:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per Krd, legally painted murals won't be {{Non-free graffiti}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This logo is unusable due to its white fond. 2001:A61:109D:F101:D165:4914:EB9A:CE 09:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
--The font is light blue, not white. --Zhing'za zï Ïnin (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The color isn't a valid reason for deletion. GeorgHH • talk 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Artistic design is an invalid consideration for a deletion request. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:OCIC Tower, Phnom Penh
[edit]Derivative work violation. The building dates to 2009.[5] Since Cambodia has no acceptable freedom of panorama, license permission from the architect is required. The building became the principal / intended subject of these nominated photos.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Unknown author, therefore there is no evidence of his/her date of death. There is no evidence that the photo was published before 2004. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the image was actually published before November 7, 1917, which is crucial for the "PD-RusEmpire" license. The source qualifies it as a "rare family photo." Yellow Horror (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknown author, therefore there is no evidence of his/her date of death. There is no evidence that the image was actually published before November 7, 1917, which is crucial for the "PD-RusEmpire" license. The source qualifies it as a "rare family photo." Yellow Horror (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unknown author, therefore there is no evidence of his/her date of death. There is no evidence that the photo was published before 2017. The source said that the photo was taken from the archive of law enforcement agencies. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Unknown author, therefore there is no evidence of his/her date of death. There is no evidence that the photo was published before 2004. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Unknown author, therefore there is no evidence of his/her date of death. There is no evidence that the photo was published before 2008. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Perfect quality image so no valid reason for deletion, I draw the line at crappy poor quality mobile uploads (which this isnt). –Davey2010Talk 17:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Good quality image of a natural senior penis. Male75 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 31.191.238.52 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio|source=www.wish.com. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly seems to fall below the threshold of originality in the United States where the company is based (cf. examples at COM:TOO US). IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: License changed per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
CoA designed by Percy Erskine Nobbs (died 1964) so this emblem will not enter into the PD until 1 January 2035. Fma12 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- For inclusion on Commons, something must be in the public domain in the United States and its country of origin. The arms were published in 1906, therefore they cannot be copyrighted in the US. (The fact that the author has not been dead for 70 years is irrelevant for the vast majority of works published before the 1970s/80s copyright reforms in the US.) If Percy Erskine Nobbs' personal copyright applied to the arms (and I'm not sure whether or not this would have been affected by their later being granted by the Garter King of Arms), it doesn't matter. His work entered the public domain in Canada in 2015, as Canada then had a 50-year PMA copyright term, and the extension beginning next year does not apply retroactively. The McGill COA in general is in the PD in the US and Canada. (A particular rendition may or may not be, as the case may be, taking into account sufficient originality, etc.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- This rendition may be more recent and may be copyrightable. However, definitely OK for inclusion here would be, for example, [the 1922 rendition from the grant of arms http://www.archives.mcgill.ca/public/exhibits/installation/main/gallery-coarms.htm], for instance. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would not have started this DR if the coat had originated in the US, of course. That point is out of discussion. Besides you are right, the term for the expiration of non-photographic works' copyright in Canada is 50 years, not 70 so this coat would be in the PD.
- But the fact is that rendition is more recent so I'm still reluctant to keep this file here. The original rendition of the coat by Nobbs (which you linked above) would be the best (or only?) option. Fma12 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per D. Benjamin Miller and discussion. Original CoA established as PD, variations on PD work seem minor, though overloading with original version might be preferred. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to change the name of two files and i forgot to change the rename template when i copypasted it to this file and now i can't rename the other one, i've tried to correctly rename this file but it just created this redirect page MostEpic (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @MostEpic: I see the file has been renamed. Has the issue been resolved, or do you still want this file deleted? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Wrong redirect. Ruthven (msg) 20:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo Yann (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO India/COM:TOO US. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
These files are not works of the United States government. They are created and copyright to the Illinois General Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the image was actually published before November 7, 1917, which is crucial for the "PD-RusEmpire" license. The source qualifies it as a "rare family photo." Yellow Horror (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no evidence that the image was actually published before November 7, 1917, which is crucial for the "PD-RusEmpire" license. Its author died in 1972, so the photo may be under copyright until 2047 (70 + 4 years, since the author worked during the Great Patriotic War). Yellow Horror (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- То, что автор Молчанов, ничем не подтверждается. Фото по качеству и по формату существенно отличается от известных фотографий работы Молчанова, в худшую сторону. Удалил из описания, так что аргументы, основанные на авторстве, нерелевантны.
На сайте Глазовского краеведческого музея фото датируется 1910 годом, без указания автора - https://www.glazovmuseum.ru/1264-stanciya-glazov-125.html. Я написал им запрос об источнике, и прошу подождать ответа. --Kaganer (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)- Их музея ответили, что была использована фотография из фондов музея - фотокопия из старых поступлений, автор снимка неизвестен, на обороте надпись карандашом «Жел. станц. Глазов, 1910 год». По предположению сотрудников музея, оригинал может находиться в закрытом фонде краеведа М.И. Бунии в Архивном управлении Администрации города Глазова. Таким образом, а) авторство Молчанова дезавуировано; б) маловероятно, что подобное фото было сделано в 1910 году каким-то любителем для собственных нужд. Скорее всего это вырезка или выкопировка из какой-то публикации. --Kaganer (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Although there is no exact information about the edition where the image was published, there are no rational arguments for doubting the date or legal status of this image. --Kaganer (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Thank you for your investigation, but the "PD-RusEmpire" license is based on the thesis that a creative work first published in the territory of the Russian Empire (with specified exceptions) is currently not subject to the Berne Convention as "not having a country of origin". For a work whose circumstances of first publication are unknown, this license can't be used. Current Russian copyright law, which is generally respected on Wikimedia Commons, does not include a time limit for the protection of unpublished works by unknown authors. Thus, the photo should be considered copyrighted in Russia indefinitely. Or, considering the publication on the museum’s website as the first legal publication, in Russia the photo is under copyright for 70 years from the moment of that publication, that is, until 2093. And by US law, it is protected for 120 years from the moment of creation (according to the museum dating of the photo, until 2031).--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. As per Kaganer, it is not disputed that the photo was taken in 1910, it has not been shown that the photo was published in the Russian Empire before 1917. Therefore the photo must be deleted. It can be undeleted 120 years after 1910, in 2031 . --Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)
[edit]https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/madam-chiang-kai-shek-makes-statement-about-japanese-news-footage/98441957 "Madam Chiang Kai Shek makes statement about Japanese bombing raids in Nanking and elsewhere in China / She asks for boycott of Japanese goods / Chiang Kai-shek stands by her side. Madam Chiang Blasts Japanese War Terrorism on October 13, 1937 in Nanking, China" "Credit:Film Audio Services - Footage. Editorial #:98441957"
probably still copyrighted.
RZuo (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. How does this not fit {{PD-China-film}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs)
- it's unclear who's the copyright owner. it's also unclear whether this footage was "first published in china", so chinese copyright rules may not apply. https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVAA9ZQN9GEVOJ0WJOE65FYIVU3W-CHINA-DEFENCE-CHINA-FIGHTS-ON is the same clip, and they claim this is owned by reuters and british pathe?--RZuo (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The information at British Pathe suggests that this was first broadcast as part of the British Paramount Newsreel, so the place of first publication seems to be the UK. This will make it protected in the UK on the URAA date and thus protected in the US unless it was simultaneously broadcast there without a copyright notice. Felix QW (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Imho it is higly likely that this film, dating 1940, has been lawfully published in China at some moment, but more then 50 years ago, so the film is in pd per {{PD-China-film}}. Therefore I decided to keep the file. --Ellywa (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)
[edit]4m0s still copyrighted 1943 TIME cover. 5m30s TV series screenshot? full speech (20+min) available File:Madame Chiang Kai Shek of China Addressed the House of Representatives on 18 February 1943.mp3.
RZuo (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: imho the 5m30 possibly TV screenshot can be considered "de minimis" for the full film. --Ellywa (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)
[edit]04:00-04:30 = 30s . 05:30-06:00 = 30s . (30+30)/657 = 9.13% . The images taking up the whole screen lasting for 30s each are not "incidental inclusion". 9.13% is not de minimis. And these are only two of the obvious copyvios. Whole video is full of unsourced photos.
RZuo (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Probably best reduced to the audio. --RAN (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- audio is here File:Madame Chiang Kai Shek of China Addressed the House of Representatives on 18 February 1943.mp3, twice as long as this video. RZuo (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, use File:Madame Chiang Kai Shek of China Addressed the House of Representatives on 18 February 1943.mp3 instead. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)
[edit]includes footage not produced by VOA.
- File:美国 北约 军事制裁卡扎菲 中国管制茉莉花集会.ogv 3m40s daniel craig psa
- File:中国二次茉莉花集会 记者警察冲突.ogv 1m7s 2m15s other tv stations' footage
RZuo (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
,_RP-P-2010-221-905.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_RP-P-2010-221-905.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source page says "Copyright Rein Dool" (click on "objectgegevens"); Rein Dool is still alive.
This is probably the same for all works in the Category:Rein Dool. This uploader needs to be looked at. 83.255.65.197 15:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This image was licensed CC-BY during the time of the upload. Credits at Rijksmuseum have apparently been changed and are now: Credit line / Overdracht van beheer van het Instituut Collectie Nederland / Verwervingoverdracht van beheer dec-2008 / Copyright Rein Dool. I am definitely sure the image was licensed CC-BY in 2019, because I checked it extra before categorizing and using this image in Wiki-NL. I can't prove it though, because the Internet Archive doesn't seem to have made a snapshot (302). @IP 83.255.65.197: the uploader doesn't "need to be looked at", as you sneer. He is a trustworthy uploader, uploaded more than a million images to Commons and won the Wiki NL Illustration Owl 2020. Vysotsky (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- So you checked it and saw that the "Public domain" or CC0 claimed in the image description was not correct. 83.255.65.197 20:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nice joke (I guess I now know who you are). You know as well as I do that many living artists give Rijksmuseum permission to bring their paintings, photos etc from the Rijksmuseum collection under a CC-BY-license. And this happens on the initiative of the artists themselves, as publicly said by former Rijksmuseum employee and Wikimedia NL board member Lizzy Jongma (Firenze, 2015). Ask her if you don't believe me. Vysotsky (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Licenses accepted at Commons, such as CC BY, are irrevocable. The CC0 legal tool and other public domain dedications are also irrevocable. Brianjd (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- So you checked it and saw that the "Public domain" or CC0 claimed in the image description was not correct. 83.255.65.197 20:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- The Internet Archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20191128164453/https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/RP-P-2010-221-905 works for me apart from the weird Cookie message, which I can't click away without switching to a more recent version of the page. However, from what I can see there the byline hasn't changed (although the more detailed information further down may have, the cookies are in the way...). Felix QW (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I do believe it has been published before with CC-BY. But the information today is "Copyright Rein Dool". Perhaps Rijksmuseum made a mistake and the copyright has not been transferred, and they corrected the credit line. Of course, CCBY cannot be revoked but if Rein Dool did not give his permission, a mistake should be corrected. Therefore I decided to delete the image If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Parce que la vraie Maison Forte est plus à droite de votre photo 2A01:CB19:833:2E00:B88F:BF1A:B748:6046 16:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Si la maison forte est plus à droite, il suffit de modifier le nom de ma photo qui reste un élément architectural très intéressant de la commune et qui, selon moi, représente une maison forte ou un manoir. Donc, je m'oppose totalement à sa suppression. Par ailleurs, j'aimerais connaître l'emplacement exact de l'« autre » maison forte. Père Igor (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion, please change the name of the file in a more appropriate name. --Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Il s'agit d'un scan d'un schéma issu d'un ouvrage de A. Gibert et J. Banaudo, Trains Oubliés, vol. 1, de 1981 Sardon (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pierre cb as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Japanese actress photoshopped image likely from a copyrighted website. Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 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) 23:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DHN as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: First published in 2018 Yann (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence the photo has been published in 1931 or soon thereafter. --Ellywa (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
