Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/11/15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 15th, 2022
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I am the author of this recording. It's too loud to pronounce. I recorded the right one today. Please delete. Thank you. WrS.tm.pl (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:NOTHOST: no realistic educative value, antisemite, used by vandals in Wikidata and the Spanish Wikipedia. -sasha- (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, speedied as also COM:DW of [1]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate of File:Pocahontas-14.jpg Patrick, oѺ 03:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: and redirected already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Obvious spam. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Yann. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation. No evidence in ABC's website stating that its files are in PD or CC 4.0. Hence, they are copyrighted. 103.131.14.12 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File description gives these links as the source:
Brianjd (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per nomination. Already nominated for speedy deletion. Uploader’s only other upload has the same issue and has now been nominated for speedy deletion as well. Brianjd (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per nomination, blatant case. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

ne convient pas avec la religion islamic 197.1.117.121 16:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you like File:Siyah Qalem - Hazine 2153, s.33a.jpg for instance? We cannot delete files for subjective arguments not written in the Commons guidelines. If an image has been created four centuries ago, it has been created; now, whether it complies with religious concepts or not is an important issue that has to be kept and dealt out of this place. --E4024 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no reason to delete this file. --Lebob 18:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Kept according to established policies and overwhelming established consensus, Commons is not censored based on your religious beliefs. Please refer to en:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, File talk:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mahomet.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Muhammad 1514.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mcrop.JPG (concerning the same file), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed by Hlkolaya.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg (2nd nomination), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beheading Prophet Muhammad. Muhammads cousin.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An angel presenting Mohammed with a town.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed Splits the Moon.jpg for example. At this point, endlessly nominating these images without the slightest attempt at bringing any new arguments whatsoever to the table is purely disruptive. If you are offended by depictions of Muslim characters created by Muslim artists, don't look at depictions of Muslim characters created by Muslim artists. Speedy non-admin closure, because there is plenty of precedent here. LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image represents a lack of respect for the Muslim community and especially for the person represented (Muhammad). This is an offence to Muslim, We therefore ask for this image to be deleted as soon as possible. Thank you in advance. 2A01:CB1D:8CD6:1700:593E:DA7C:1E01:8476 12:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept (non administrator closure) Slam dunk per previous several closures linked above. How can you (or several yous?) claim to speak in name of "the Muslim community"? If it offends you ("offence to Muslim"), dont look at it but dont try to impose your religious convictions on other people, be it muslims or non-muslims or claim to a enourmous and heterogeneous group. In fact this is a ottoman copy of an original iranian copy, clearly muslim countries then and now. Tm (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Offensive to Muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost of Kiev (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]


Kept: (non administrator closure) per previous sections.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

our prophet SHOULDN'T be illustrated !!!! 31.33.138.9 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion, see the requests above. --Wutsje 03:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Incorrect File name Gillfoto (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gillfoto Just request a rename. No need for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for quick and direct response. Could please give me instructions as to how I do that? Gillfoto (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gillfoto See the introduction to Commons:File renaming. Note that rename requests are generally declined while a DR is open, so you will need to wait for someone to close this DR. Brianjd (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your direct supportGillfoto (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Pinging @Gillfoto. Brianjd (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to be a derivative of the copyright London Underground/TfL map. Matches colours and layout. Voice of Clam 13:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it.. X'Zavier Divino (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you delete this? X'Zavier Divino (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ACT PAO PG (talk · contribs)

[edit]

NATO official photos, no evidence of permission

Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These photos have been shot in-house by our photographer so we don't need to ask permission. Happy to add a disclaimer if needed to explain it. ACT PAO PG (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 14:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyright violation ProfAuthor (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ProfAuthor as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author In use. Yann (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File is no longer in use ProfAuthor (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyright violation ProfAuthor (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ProfAuthor as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author Yann (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In use. Yann (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File is no longer in use ProfAuthor (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is in use in en:Thames Valley Police. Yann (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: In use. --Kadı Message 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

May be a copyright violation - unsure. ProfAuthor (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by MurGT (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused logos and personal photos of questionable notability.

Netora (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a U.K.-based orgainzation, and the logo is above COM:TOO UK, which is a very, very low TOO. The website from which this image was taken does not appear to have released this logo under CC-BY-SA 4.0, and as such this appears to be an invalid license that should be deleted per COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unsourced decades old photos, certainly not 2022 photos by uploader. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Trivial fraction, could easily be written in wikitext or math markup if it has a context DMacks (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Wyslijp16 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83. Too old for G7, but I'm sympathetic to people who no longer want intimate photos of them public. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757 The linked talk page contains a comment by the uploader, Cincy83, but that comment does not request deletion. I see no reason for deletion here. Brianjd (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83. --Krd 05:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Wyslijp16 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83 Too old for G7, but I'm sympathetic to people who no longer want intimate photos of them public. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Semi-Erect Human Penis.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83. --Krd 05:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Wyslijp16 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83 Too old for G7, but I'm sympathetic to people who no longer want intimate photos of them public. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Semi-Erect Human Penis.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cincy83. --Krd 05:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio. COM:TOO? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Pazio Paz as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F1, copyright violation.. COM:TOO? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

ITV is based in the United Kingdom, which has a very low threshold of originality, which this appears to be above and is thus copyrighted in its country of origin. I see no evidence that this ITV logo is actually licensed by ITV under a Creative Commons license, and as such I think that we should delete this as a presumptive copyright violation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. — Haseeb (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Likely invalid license. Photo is dated 1955, but the indicated author is Maritel Riego Ledesma, the daughter of the ancestral mansion's original owner. Apparently she is still alive, as she runs a blog site that is connected to the city where the mansion is located. It is also likely she is this Facebook user. In any case the underlying old photo is unlikely to be in public domain and if ever the uploader got a consent from Ms. Ledesma the consent may not include the right to distribute her photo commercially without remuneration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This photo is so blurry that I don't know what kind of car it is. Looking at Category:Nissan GT-R (R35, pre-facelift), I think there are better quality ones out there. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This photo is so blurry that I don't know what kind of car it is. Looking at Category:Nissan GT-R (R35, pre-facelift), I think there are better quality ones out there. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP for indoor works in Poland A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Atnhealth (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused logos of questionable notability.

Netora (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 83.61.243.178 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author unknown contradicts "author died >100 years ago" or assuming that someone who did something 100 years ago would have died at least 99 years ago.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Despite of deficits in the description, the image is likely PD-old. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 83.61.243.178 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Author unknown" contradicts "author died >70 years ago" or assuming that someone who did something 100 years ago would have died at least 70 years ago.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. It might be worth the effort trying to track down the photographer. --. Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 83.61.243.178 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Author unknown" contradicts "author died >70 years ago" or assuming that someone who did something 100 years ago would have died at least 70 years ago.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. It might be worth the effort trying to track down the photographer. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

High quality professional photo with no exif, unlikely to be own work, PCP, requires OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

nonsence map. This is sciene fiction — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.0.81.231 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:Derivative work: picture of a computer screen. Original source and author unknown. MKFI (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, copyvio of https://www.fdd.org/team/joshua-mast/ Belbury (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

He died in 2020 which makes the 2021 own work claim unlikely Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Villaboy889 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)

JopkeB (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:PORN, unsurprisingly.

Dronebogus (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All files have the same uploader, who has no other global contributions. All are unused and unlinked. All have a decent resolution but appear low-quality; all lack camera metadata. Brianjd (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Derivative works from photos. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

google maps screen Oruniak (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Xo gonz4 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Self-promotional personal files uploaded only for use on a now-deleted promotional page on Spanish Wikipedia. Outside of COM:SCOPE.

Marbletan (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The file is marked "©2007 Expedia Inc". There is no evidence (and it is very unlikely) that the uploader has the authority or permission from Expedia to relicense it as cc-by-2.5. Marbletan (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Scanned old (1980s) professional photo, highly likely not own work as stated in the description. Xunks (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: low definition blurry image of subject where there is surplus of better quality images Headlock0225 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is an unsourced article and not a media file. Ww2censor (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is an unsource article page not a media file. Ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gpereira99 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:NOTHOST/COM:SCOPE - fake map alternative history nonsense untethered to any source or realistic educational use.

Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete At best no encyclopedic value, but most likely an attempt to rewrite history. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gpereira99 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

fake data, misleading diagrams

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: Is the same picture as on the website of the artist https://www.emily-francisco.com/projects/a-duel-becomes-a-battle CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: It is the same picture as on the website of the artist https://www.emily-francisco.com/projects/may-i-have-the-piano-delivered-to-you CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: It is the same picture as on the website of the artist https://www.emily-francisco.com/projects/ocular-harpsichord CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: It is the same picture as on the website of the artist https://www.emily-francisco.com/projects/constituents CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by YavarPS24 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:DW of banknotes - per COM:NICARAGUA, banknotes are not among the limited excluded items.

Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No freedom of panorama in Slovenia, permission from the creator is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The three files were only used on one article on fiwiki, and were replaced by <math> code. --Tinker Bell 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image should have no arrows. The system refuses to upload a version without arrows over the existing one. Teun Spaans 07:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: second version is without arrows as intended, I guess there was a file cache problem so the first version was stil displayed for a while. --Rosenzweig τ 08:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lack of EXIF data and low file size. Probably taken from Facebook like the other uploads of the user. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unfree work of architecture, not in public domain. It was completed in 2010[2] and authored by architect Orlando Mateo.[3][4] Since there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law, photographs of copyrighted works of art and architecture in public places, like this very recent city hall, cannot be photographed for commercial purposes.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio of https://iiif.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/image/2/25838cfc-8c32-49c1-ad4e-72818941c9b4/full/!800,600/0/default.jpg and above COM:TOO Germany.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: I don't think this is above COM:TOO Germany. And if it is not, it cannot be a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The photographer Hanna Kunsch is still listed as living in Göttingen in the Göttingen address book / directory for 1960, so clearly she did not die over 70 years ago, and these photographs cannot be in the public domain.

Rosenzweig τ 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding
by the same photographer to this deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, per nomination. Uploaders have been notified. Thuresson (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Hanna Kunsch died in 1961, see the updated Wikidata entry. So these are not yet in the public domain in Germany and should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2032 if their US copyrights have also expired (which should then be the case for works published no later than 1936).

Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by CLEO fernandes23 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused pictures and impossible or almost impossible to determine the subject matter

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

courtesy of Lesley University, needs OTRS

Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Fake own work claim, not PD as well. Author: Bekarian Ara Vaginakovich (1913-1986), so this is non-free until 2057. Xunks (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP for 2D works in Japan. De minimis cannot be applied as the artwork is too prominent A1Cafel (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Lotje (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Movie character, this seems to be a photoshopped image with background changed: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0898634/mediaviewer/rm3629750016/ MKFI (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: unused file, private image Cjp24 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's of no use anymore.It's duty has been done.It's old Nku mapara nation (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm no longer interested in putting it up. Nku mapara nation (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation? This photo is also on https://diariocorreo.pe/peru/en-puno-comenzaron-los-cacharpari-despedida-de-fiestas-564547/ which looks like a news site. I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Dubious claim of own work. Found here https://egy.hu/kult/a-bemutato-attol-fuggott-hogy-az-elvtarsak-mit-ertettek-meg-a-darabbol-interju-szilagyi-eniko-szinesznovel-109843# and is part of a film poster see https://mardishongrois.blogspot.com/2017/10/eniko-szilagyi-donnera-un-concert.html dated 2017 Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This claimed to be an official logo. Presumably it is for some entity known as NE8 Media Network although the description does not state this. There are a few NE8 media that I can find, but none seem to use this "official logo". This image is unused and out of scope for Commons, as well as not being verifiable. Whpq (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We do not keep PDFs of images. File:MarALagoTopSecret.jpg is the same image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Evackost (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Babyfatima2001 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

complete lack of location/context info makes it useless, OOS - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mountains202.jpg - @Babyfatima2001: please give a description. Any text about where you took this images would help

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Richash19 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE for Commons as "nothing educational other than raw text". Belbury (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image appears cropped at

Also note that User:Hihelloworld claims to have been the photographer for this image and User:Moses200202 claims to have been the photographer for a cropped version, File:Pamela Li.png. Both cannot be true so neither cannot be kept here without a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW in the description for this file User:Hihelloworld calls themself "RLee". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Couldn't find the image on Flickr, but it does appear with https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/518dc2312162ef15a057f376, which does not allow reuse. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photo d'un groupe de voyageurs non précisé. Le monument n'est même pas visible.

Photo of an unspecified travel group. The monument is not even visible.

Ptyx (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptyx I think a lot of their uploads need to be deleted, either as out of scope or as copyright violations (neither France nor Greece have FoP). Unless, of course, the underlying sculptures are PD – but the uploads I sampled have no indication of this. Brianjd (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation see metadata which read "Author ERIC FECKEN mail@ericfecken.nl Copyright holder All rights reserved eric fecken" Hoyanova (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's a derivative work, and neither COM:Stamps nor COM:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines suggests that the stamp is PD ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: Is on the internet since 2014 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: Although the metadata is 2013, the image is uploaded here in 2022. Tineye shows that this image is on internet since 2014, so the image may be downloaded to the computer and then uploaded to Commons. --Kadı Message 17:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Nie używany plik. Zamieszczony podwójnie. 81.163.207.140 06:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Abdulfazel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Abdulfazel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of or including the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment On the talk page of the uploader an IP editor is asserting that they have the right to upload these files and the one in the discussion above. I am noting that here. I have given strong advice to the IP editor (and thus the uploader since it is their talk page) that they assert their rights via COM:VRT. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I am no longer interested in having this picture uploaded Thank you.There is even a one that looks like this one. Nku mapara nation (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Haseeb55 as no permission (No permission since). However there is no permission required for works that have not been published elsewhere. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Image sent via WA - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Haseeb55 as no permission (No permission since). However there is no permission required for works that have not been published elsewhere. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Image sent via WA - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Haseeb55 as no permission (No permission since). However there is no permission required for works that have not been published elsewhere. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Image sent via WA - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Haseeb55 as no permission (No permission since). However there is no permission required for works that have not been published elsewhere. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Image sent via WA - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Haseeb55 as no permission (No permission since). However there is no permission required for works that have not been published elsewhere. Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Image sent via WA - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Almost certainly copyfraud. User has no history on here except for uploading a handful of very old photos and claiming that they were his own work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Almost certainly copyfraud. User has no history on here except for uploading a handful of very old photos and claiming that they were his own work. Also, too small to be useful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Almost certainly copyfraud. User has no history on here except for uploading a handful of very old photos and claiming that they were his own work. Also clearly credited to an agency and published in a copyrighted work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Certainly copyfraud, as user has no history on here except for uploading a handful of very old photos and claiming that they were his own work. While this is in the public domain in terms of age (who knows when/where it was first published, but it was certainly taken before 1927), it is lo-rez and probably of dubious educational value. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Almost certainly copyfraud. User has no history on here except for uploading a handful of very old photos and claiming that they were his own work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination; unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Look this https://app-dz.com/opera-dalger-13/. Cordially 90.61.9.177 16:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and per exif. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Are you claiming that there is COM:FOP issue or that uploader has not took the photo or what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Are you claiming that there is COM:FOP issue or that uploader has not took the photo or what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Are you claiming that there is COM:FOP issue or that uploader has not took the photo or what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Are you claiming that there is COM:FOP issue or that uploader has not took the photo or what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of what? Are you claiming that there is COM:FOP issue or that uploader has not took the photo or what? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

THere s no reason to believe this is freely licensed. The home page for the Sheriff's Office comes up with "COPYRIGHT © 2022 NIAGARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NY ". The page cited as the source comes up blank, so {{LicenseReview}} is not possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it even within our COM:SCOPE? Is it some notable person? Or random arrested (not necessarily guilty) person? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notable person; Steve Pigeon worked in the White House in the Clinton administration and was a player in Western New York politics for several years. His arrest and conviction was in a public corruption case involving state and federal government.
I also have no reason to believe the Niagara County Sheriff's Office is claiming copyright except insofar as the New York State Freedom of Information Law makes a distinction between commercial requesters and non-commercial ones and there are laws covering the use and sale of mugshots.
But make no mistake, this is a document within the scope of the Freedom of Information Law, which the public (broadly defined) has a right to. Evackost (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; can be undeleted with evidence that it is PD. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

screen from streetviev Oruniak (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates: 50°04'50.3"N 19°58'26.6"E. --MemicznyJanusz (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

streetviev screen Oruniak (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

PDF copy of a user page (c:en:User:Sarah Susan Yedla). Outside of COM:SCOPE, uneeded as a PDF here on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source, very unlikely own work from importer Mathis B (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The Flickr source uses an incompatible license. However, the licence history (under "Additional info") shows that it was originally posted under CC-BY-SA. Joofjoof (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I trust Flickr license history and couple of days ago I even accepted one file through license review process using that feature. Taivo (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Per that License History:

Note: There is no license history before July 17, 2008
Date March 7, 2013
Old License Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.0)
New License Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Lines 2, 3, and 4 are doubled (there is a second set of them).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but you uploaded the file on 8 November 2022, well after they changed the licence.🤔
technically in 2022 they dont offer the file as ccbysa.
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license "As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms."
here's the problem. the licensor offered this file A under ccbysa. suppose no one made a copy of file A. licensor stopped offering file A under ccbysa, then they offered file B under ccncnd, but file B is identical to file A. can you then claim that because it was once available under ccbysa before, even if no one made a copy of the early one, you can use the new one as if you got it from the old one?
in 2022, you dont have access to a copy to "the file before 2013". you're accessing it in 2022.🤔 RZuo (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Commons licenses are irrevocable. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

license is not for commoercial use which is incompatible with wiki and social media Victuallers (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per the previous section. The file was irrevocably licensed Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.0) from July 17, 2008 until March 6, 2013. In fact, it is still "Copyright (cc-by-sa) © World Economic Forum" today.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I think you could have closed this DR yourself. Why didn’t you? Brianjd (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Doing so could have been perceived as a COI, as I !voted to keep in the previous section (making me "involved"). You, on the other hand, have not !voted on it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by error and forgot to rename file before uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDragonValo (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16. Nov. 2022‎ (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion, file was renamed in the meantime, redirect kept. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Karmaker (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Disputed F10 - used in an unaccepted draft. My other concern is copyright. One says BRAC/Kamrul Hasan, others have no meaningful exif. I think we need OTRS if these are in scope

Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am connected contributor. I work in BRAC. Karmaker (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 12:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ZamirAdilova (talk · contribs)

[edit]

High quality photos with no meaningful exif, unlikely to be own work as claimed. Needs OTRS

Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding File:Zamira Adilova in 2022.jpg Gbawden (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 12:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Solymoskristof (talk · contribs)

[edit]

1960 photo - unlikely to be 2021 own work, needs OTRS

Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 12:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work as claimed Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 12:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

© Vincent Capman needs OTRS

Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 12:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file is entirely my work and has been appropriated and uploaded with my consent. William C. Minor (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are you asking for deletion if it was "uploaded with [your] consent"? Does cropping an existing image and reducing the sepia tone to b&w award you a new copyright? --RAN (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The nominator uploaded this reproduction of a print of this photograph held by the BnF over a reproduction of a different print of the same photograph from the Musée d'Orsay, which I had uploaded earlier (File:Pierre Cicéri by Nadar - Musée d'Orsay - Tamvaco 2000 fig136.jpg). Since there was little reason to upload it under an incorrect file name and it seemed reasonable to upload them under different file names, I did that and also uploaded the original from the BnF. I fully credited him with the original upload, so I don't see why there is any problem. Since he did not ask my consent when he uploaded this image over the image I uploaded, I don't think he should object when I uploaded it under a better file name and restored the image of the print at the Musée d'Orsay. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per User:Robert.Allen. --P 1 9 9   15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file is a misappropriation of [[File:Pierre Ciceri by Nadar.png]]. The uploader plagiarized the latter image by changing the file format from png to jpg without any work of any kind. William C. Minor (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is not a valid reason for deletion. We allows JPEG and PNG formats for the same image, as JPEG is more suitable for display on wikis, while PNG is best for archiving purpose. Yann (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. You can do anything you want with a PD image. --P 1 9 9   15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Twitter does not use this as a flag, so this is out-of-COM:SCOPE as not useful for an educational purpose. If this is in scope, the flag's stated license will need fixing, as the Twitter Bird is copyrighted in the United States but also available under an Apache license, not a Creative Commons one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As far as I understand, this is a parody flag, so its existence (of course, when the license is fixed) is quite possible. 95.52.125.126 07:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify any educational purpose to having this flag? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It can hardly be "own work", considering the age of the photos; and it is very unlikely that the author has died long enough for them to be in the public domain. --Stego (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This picture belongs to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and was taken by his personal secretary at that time. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all those pictures belong to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and were taken by his personal secretary at that time or by a relative. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, need COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9   15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It can hardly be "own work", considering the age of the photos; and it is very unlikely that the author has died long enough for them to be in the public domain. --Stego (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This picture belongs to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and was taken by his personal secretary at that time. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all those pictures belong to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and were taken by his personal secretary at that time or by a relative. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, need COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9   15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It can hardly be "own work", considering the age of the photos; and it is very unlikely that the author has died long enough for them to be in the public domain. --Stego (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This picture belongs to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and was taken by his personal secretary at that time. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all those pictures belong to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and were taken by his personal secretary at that time or by a relative. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, need COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9   15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It can hardly be "own work", considering the age of the photos; and it is very unlikely that the author has died long enough for them to be in the public domain. --Stego (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This picture belongs to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and was taken by his personal secretary at that time. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all those pictures belong to a personal archive from the artist, now managed by his family, and were taken by his personal secretary at that time or by a relative. DanielLucenaDaHoraAlves (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, need COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9   15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

RMA descr. & permission error, protected art, artist died 1963, undelete 2033 Peli (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The file history of this upload shows that everything (description, license) was about a different image. 83.255.65.197 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   15:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reproduced from a published paper, no evidence of free use license. Paper is paywalled and has copyright notice on the page Geogene (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   15:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

De foto is waarschijnlijk afkomstig van facebook[1]. Toestemming van de oorspronkelijke auteur moet gestuurd worden naar VRT. トトト (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   15:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Thus this file showing a work of architecture from 1995[5] requires commercial license authorization from the building architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The building was completed in August 2011, according to [6]. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law, which means works of art and architecture made by architects or sculptors who are not yet dead for at least 50 years are not to be photographed for free and commercial uses, which the free CC licenses mandate.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work - contains a portion of Chakaia Booker's copyrighted sculpture Anonymous Donor, image was taken in the United States (no freedom of panorama) 19h00s (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per COM:United States#Stamps, U.S. stamps issued after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright. Eureka Lott 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per COM:United States#Stamps, U.S. stamps issued after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright.

Eureka Lott 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are United States Postal Service stamps, work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. They are there for educational purposes. They are not there for advertising or solicitation, trading, sales or commercial purposes.Greg Henderson (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, since stamps after 1978 are "copyrighted by the United States Postal Service after 1 January 1978 (the date on which the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect)", per COM:United States#Stamps. reppoptalk 03:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mariagata1959 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

User has been uploading files from multiple sources and authors without any free licence verification.

 Keep Painting from the 1820ies, PD. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~Cybularny Speak? 01:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete all. The uploader does not edit Wikipedia, so nearly no file is in use. Although some may or may not be PD, the uploader's claims cannot be trusted, and individual checks in this amount are not achievable. Delete all per PCP and consider to block user if uploading of doubtful useless files continues before everything is cleaned up. --Krd 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, two kept by request above. Note: some of the user's other uploads may be PD, but as they are all from 3rd party sources with claims by very unreliable uploader, Commons is better off without them. This does not prejudge reupoad of any verifiably PD image with accurate verifiable information. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mariagata1959 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope

Trade (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few hundred more of these which are all similar in nature (an image of a solid color with a name and HTML color code overlaid on it). Any objection if I add the rest? Omphalographer (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you happy, add it Mariagata1959 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you uploaded these? Trade (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response from the uploader, so I'm adding the following 404 (!) images to the nomination. I realize this is a lot, but these images were all created en masse; it shouldn't take more effort to remove them than it did to upload them.

Omphalographer (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Itv2022logos (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Logos are above threshold of originality in the United Kingdom. There is no evidence that ITV has granted a license for these to be available under a suitable free license, so these should be deleted in line with COM:PRP as violating our licensing policy.

Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It is me in the picture and I don't want it to be published on internet. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Viona.ielegems (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear this, of course I second the request to delete. Motophil (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks so much, Phil. I just need to start a new chapter in my life and it's hard when I keep on dragging the past with me. Best greetings, Viona Viona.ielegems (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In use at de:Wave-Gotik-Treffen. Brianjd (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The subject has her own category, her own Wikidata item and articles on four Wikipedias (linked from the Wikidata item). Usually, such well-known people don’t get to simply say they don’t want their picture published, especially when said picture was taken in a public place (I assume it was). Brianjd (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not a well-known person and for personal reasons I wish to have this picture deleted. Thank you. Viona Viona.ielegems (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this snapshot of me being published on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. It's a part of my past and I do not with it to be public domain. It is harmful for my current personal life and reputation. I am not active as a gothic photographer since many years. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Viona.ielegems (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Delete This photo seems to have been taken in Germany. German personality rights Allgemeines Personlichkeitsrecht include right to dispose fully of one’s own image in public and to decide on one’s own merchandising and also right of one’s own picture. ie. in the absence of any model release / contract, the right to commercial exploitation of one's own image vests exclusively in the model. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (Cat Stevens) -- Tuválkin 08:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If the photo was taken in Germany, the author did not have the authority to release it under CC-BY-SA-3.0 in the absence of a model release, so there never was a valid licence in the first place. Also see COM:CSCR for Germany. PS: What is Cat Stevens in this context ?SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SinghIsFxing I was going to link to COM:CSCR#Germany anyway, but you could also have done so. That section and the article it links to are not very clear: Is a person who is notable enough to have articles in four Wikipedias in the sphere of Zeitgeschichte?
    In any case, I don’t see what this has to do with copyright. If this is indeed the own work of the uploader, there should be no copyright problem. Brianjd (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The present case would not fall in the sphere of Zeitgeschichte. (as it stands today after various judgements). Also there is no German language Wikipedia to establish her notability in Germany.
    2. Under German law, in the absence of an agreement between the photographer and the subject - even for images taken in a public place, the long term publication and valuable exploitation rights vest in the subject who can control their usage. The photographer cannot override those rights through a CC-BY-SA. SinghIsFxing (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is well-established that consent is required for people who are not in the sphere of Zeitgeschichte. But how do we know whether this person is in the sphere of Zeitgeschichte?
    2. Applying a CC BY-SA license does not override the need for consent, but as far as I know, the lack of consent does not invalidate the CC BY-SA license either. They are completely separate things. We could use the file, and the subject would be able to take action under German personality rights law (only to the extent we were under German jurisdiction), but the photographer would not be able to take action for copyright infringement.
    Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tuvalkin I second that question: What does Cat Stevens mean? Brianjd (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete § 23 (1) No. 3 KUG (expendable consent for photographs taken at assemblies the depicted person attended) requires that the assembly is recognizable as such. In this picture the person isolated. You cannot see it was at the named gathering (i.e. context). ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep SinghIsFxing, first this is a belgium photographer, so there is no need to have a "German language Wikipedia to establish her notability in Germany", as there is no requirement in any specific language, fact would be well know to anyone that has more than a mere two days of registration and very small number of edits in any wikimedia project (but then again this lack of edits will probably continue as SinghIsFxing was blocked in english wikipedia as a sockpuppet).

But, just to answer to this novel argument, as belgian (as wikimedia says) there is a french and dutch articles, besides two other languages. Alas, as the brazilian Época magazine says in [an article about the victorian nostalgia and revivalism that one inspiration of some brazilians took were from this photographer (in portuguese she is also wrongly called as being swedish "Uma das inspirações deles é o trabalho da fotógrafa sueca Viona Ielegems, que vive na Alemanha."). And by the way this is not the single mention in brazilian sites about this photographer. So it is a bit difficult to believe that this photographer is not a public person when there are at least two articles about this photographer in a different country, continent and language, talk about this photographer, in particular the fact that this photographer was the organizer of an victorian picnic in Wave-Gotik-Treffenwhere (WGT) this photo was taken. This fact of her being an organizer is undisputable as Coilhouse maganizne mentions this fact in one article about WGT

Just to exemplified how this photographer is more than a "mere" photographer but an artist with talents in other artistic areas and also that her fame is not just present in Germany but also, and at least, in USA, Belgium, UK, France and Brazil, there is an article by the german newspapper Volksstimme about her artistic work in the Heinrichshorst Castle ("Schloss Heinrichshorst"), article that also states that "She organizes costume and vampire balls in Belgium, France and Germany, and her reputation reaches as far as the USA. Castle owners ask them, event agencies, costume designers. " (automatic translation of "In Belgien, Frankreich und Deutschland organisiert sie Kostüm- und Vampirbälle, bis in die USA eilt ihr Ruf. Schlossbesitzer fragen sie an, Eventagenturen, Kostümbildner.")

But, maybe more important, are the words of this photographer, in its linkedin profile, were it says that this "leader of the neo-historical scene worldwide with over 10 years of experience in organising high-end extravaganza events, inspiring people from all over the world to live their dreams. (...) Over this decade, her work has influenced many fans, followers, other photographers, and the fashion industry worldwide, who have watched closely how she transforms her ideas into pictures, costumes and events. Viona’s events have inspired people to organise their own, similar events, in countries including France, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil, USA and Mexico.", so another reason, per own words, to doubt of being "not a well-known person".

So, per above, § 23 (1) No. 1 KUG (or Zeitgeschichte) clearly applies as this is a "Person der Zeitgeschichte" and is in a clear public space and event (and organized by the person depicted), as § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG possibly also applies, as its "distribution or exhibition serves a higher artistic interest"

Also if, indeed, this belgium photographer wants so much to depart so much from when was a gothic photographer (by her own words "when I keep on dragging the past with me"), then why in the long last past of last month did this user added, to the dutch article, the passage "Haar vroege fotografische werk is een duistere en melancholische reactie op de snelle en commercieel gedreven samenleving van de 21e eeuw waar ze niet het gevoel had dat ze er thuishoort. Haar werk is geïnspireerd op de gothic novels, gedichten en schilders van de 19e-eeuwse romantische beweging" (translated from the same text in english on the photographer website in the "Early photographic work" section) where there are mentions that "Her work is inspired by the gothic novels, poems and painters of the 19th. century romantic movement." Tm (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you properly it is important that we first establish the facts.
  1. Is Viola Ielegems the photographer here for this image or the model or both ?
  2. Is the claimed author "Motophil" equally such a reknowned person considering that all his other uploads seem to be low resolution images of autombile components ?
  3. Is the WGT held in Germany or in Belgium ?
  4. Where / when was this image first published ?
  5. Is there any specific consent (or release) of the model to publish / licence this image available with WMF ?
  6. Why does Article 8 of the ECHR not apply here to allow the model (even for an inmage made in a public space) to object to the commercial exploitation of her image (in the absence of release), as she is doing now  ?
  7. Are images without commercial reproduction rights acceptable on Commons ?
  8. Did the image not have a personality rights disclaimer precisely for the kind of objection the nominator is raising now ?
  9. Will the EU's Right to be forgotten (if invoked) be enforced by the Commons community or by the WMF ?
NB: The block on En.Wikipedia is under challenge. I have already noted on this website that I am an experienced Mediawiki user on other wikis. SinghIsFxing (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing Your latest (fourth) unblock request had already been declined when you posted that comment. It is not looking good for you.
As far as I know, for personality rights (as opposed to copyright), commercial reproduction rights have never been required on Commons. Hence the separate sections in Commons:Country specific consent requirements for non-commercial and commerical publishing and the {{Personality rights}} template. Brianjd (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing Which of these facts are actually relevant here? Surely the photographer’s notability is not? Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the facts I requested are relevant. I observe that Tm did not answer my pointed queries but instead took it down another (emotional appeal) path and is unwilling to even clarify who, in his opinion, the photographer of this image is. Also the image is released as CC-BY-SA-3.0 which includes "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially". The uploader must establish that he had the consent / release of the model for commercial adaption and reproduction. Regarding my unblock requests at En.Wp, it is proceeding as per local wiki norms and has been escalated to the appellate body where it shall be handled privately as all parties to the dispute desire. The matter is complicated by the fact the alleged puppet master has sought the assistance of a rather nasty group of Hindu nationalists who have threatened WMF's employees in India with physical harm. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may say that you are "an experienced Mediawiki user on other wikis" but the fact is that you only have 54 total edits under an account registered on Dezember 8 2022 on english wikipedia and that you are blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Lord Alan B'stard, one user blocked for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", i.e. harassement of other users and you already four unblocks requests denied. Facts are not "emotional appeal" or claims of emotional appeal.
About who "the photographer of this image is" enlightened by this deletion request and the file description. If you have any doubt, it is an user that only edited commons and de and en wikipedias, and which last edits were, for the german wikipedia in 2011-02-25, only edit was on 2020-05-11 and in commons (before his comment above,is last edit here in Commons was on 2-07-2009. Tm (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tm You assume and presume too much .. I said I was an experienced MEDIAWIKI user and have also edited other wikis such as Scholarpedia, LII-Wex and Citizendium, all of which require confirmed identities. There is no question of being a sockpuppet of anyone else. It is what is called a "collateral block" because the ISP at my current location (a huge ISP service) uses shared dynamic IP addresses for mobile services depending on location, and usually thousands of users share the same IP address at any point of time. Any other things like User Agent, local time, screen size, colour pallette etc. captured by Checkuser are easily spoofed and have no evidentiary value outside of wikipedia. Now about "Motophil", what is his real life identity so that his copyright claim for authorship can be confirmed. Does WMF even verify identities before opening user accounts ? .. And so your point was ?? SinghIsFxing (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Disagree @Tm: I seriously doubt applicability of § 23 (1) No. 1 KUG (expendable consent for people of historic interest): There will be no history books covering Viona Ielegems’ attendance at said event. § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG (expendable consent if it serves extraordinary artistic interest) could be applicable, yet this is out of scope: Commons is not an art exhibit, but focuses on educational use. § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG requires presentation/distribution within the context of artistic appreciation. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 12:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kai Burghardt Your suggestion that this file is out of scope is ridiculous, since it is in use and the subject is notable (as noted near the start of this discussion). Brianjd (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: No, for § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG it is required to present the work in the context of artistic appreciation. E. g. display the photograph in an art museum. Commons, however, is not an art exhibit. This is not in COM:SCOPE. The exemption of § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG could not be used to publish the image in a textbook on, say, Victorian era clothing. Hence, potential applicability of § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG is irrelevant for us on Commons. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 13:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kai Burghardt Your original wording was not clear. I understand it better now. But I still think that is wrong: Commons does host notable art, and one could easily imagine that art being used on, say, Wikibooks or Wikinews in the context of artistic appreciation. (This just means that § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG could still be relevant on Commons. It does not mean that § 23 (1) No. 4 KUG is relevant for this file.) Brianjd (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree @Brianjd: Uh, yes, certainly. (However, §§ 22, 23 KUG are for depictions of people.) ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kai Burghardt But something can both depict people and be notable art, right? Brianjd (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sugestion that this file is out of scope is utter nonsense as the file is in use in de:Wave-Gotik-Treffen, so Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project clearly states that a "media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose(...) if it is in use, that is enough.". There is also 4 articles about this photographer. Enough said about scope.
First, anyone that makes predictions of what history books will cover in the future ("there will be no history books covering Viona Ielegems’ attendance at said event") either does not known what is talking about or is making wild assumptions. Alas, and this in her own words she is a public person, now in my wild assumption, a with great probabilities of being covered by history books.
The fact is that several international media outlets, a basic and fundamental source in the study contemporary history, talk about this photographer, work and art, specifically this victorian picnics shows that these are people and events of events of public relevance and events of contemporary history (Zeitgeschichte)
Also, as she was the organizer of several Viktorianischen Picknick just in Wave-Gotik-Treffen, has inspired others to make the same kind of events in different places like Brazil, or by the very same own words of the depicted person "Viona’s events have inspired people to organise their own, similar events, in countries including France, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil, USA and Mexico" USA, etc, and by the very same own words of the depicted person is a "leader of the neo-historical scene worldwide" and journalists have said that "her reputation reaches as far as the USA".
There is Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany that clearly says that there is an exception "in the sphere of Zeitgeschichte (event of public relevance)" and this photographer was in Wave-Gotik-Treffen, a clear event of public relevance and was also the organizer of several yearly Viktorianischen Picknick, specificaly covered by several international media outlets with explicity mention of this photographer, picnics that occured in several yearly Wave-Gotik-Treffen.
So, all above shows that § 23 (1) No. 1 KUG clearly applies and § 23 (1) No. 4 KUGas as decision of 1 BvR 2112/15 by the Bundesverfassungsgericht protects street photography and depiction of people without prior consent to display in the context of a publicly accessible exhibition and this is a clear and cut case of street photography and Commons is a publicly accessible exhibition. Tm (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also it should be taken into account the closure as kept in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viola II - Flickr - SoulStealer.co.uk.jpg, opened with the same arguments and by the same person and event. Tm (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tm Will you please clarify who you are referring to as "the photographer" / "this photographer" in your comments. Thanks. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See image, see text of news cited, see comments of other users, etc. Tm (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument summary thus far for the retainers, seems to be that the model is a notable person photographed while participating in a public event which she was involved with in some way as an organiser, so covered under the exception to the German criminal law. That reasoning would only work if the model was shown as part of a wider collection of people participating in the event. Instead what we have here, is a deliberate image crop to focus exclusively on the model, accompanied by the awarding of a licence for commercial exploitaion of the image without the consent of the model by an anonymous photographer (who now also wishes for deletion). If the EU resident nominator is properly advised, she would firstly file a formal request to the data controller of the hosting entity (Wikimedia Foundation) under the EU GDPR regime to demand a statement of all information relating to her which is accessible to persons in the EU. After evaluating the data held, she would file formal requests to the data controller for removal. She has a rather strong case considering the community deletion methods are clearly ineffective and unduly prolonged and controversial. For reference these links may asist her How does the GDPR affect Wikimedia sites and Wikibase instances? and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and MediaWiki software and OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 2.10.2013, 4 U 78/13 and Right to Erasure and Munich Court judgement on Right to Privacy. SinghIsFxing (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing The first two links are useless. The last link contains this line near the start: There exists no claim for injunctive relief against the publication of the Claimant’s birth year in the online lexicon “Wikipedia”. So that doesn’t seem to support your argument either. I haven’t bothered checking the other links. Brianjd (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last link dealt with the situation where the Claimant had herself placed the date of birth in the public domain. The present case is entirely different where an anonymous papprazzi takes photos without the model's knowledge and first publishes it on Commons falsely assigning commercial reproduction rights which he had no authority to assign. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The second link establishes that Mediawiki wiki software is not, and apparently cannot be, GDPR compliant. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brianjd Those links were not meant for Commons volunteers, who are blinkered by self serving (one sided) Commons policies. A legal professional dealing with GDPR cases will know how to apply those links for Viola's matter, after determining the appropriate jurisdiction. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing But those links are not meant for that legal professional either, because they have better sources of information and better things to do than to make sense of your comments. So who are those links meant for? Brianjd (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are meant for Viona to get a sense of what she has to do. As the uploader / author is anonymous, the copyright vests in the publisher WMF, so she should simply bypass this dilatory and unneccessary process (which has no legal sanctity) and make a direct request under GDPR and not waste her time or ours. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing As the uploader / author is anonymous, the copyright vests in the publisher WMF Rubbish. Brianjd (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumptions about ownership of copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works. Please see the conclusion at para 5. SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing Your comments here, which encourage the subject to take legal action and purportedly assist the subject to do so, are bordering on a legal threat. Pinging @Tuvalkin for their thoughts on this issue. Brianjd (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BrianjdWhy is it taking so long to decide such a simple copyright matter ? OTH, GDPR processes are streamlined and time-bound, and processed very quickly because they are handled by qualified professionals. A GPDR request to WMF is not a legal threat because it is not adverserial but procedural. Also, Think of the victim here. SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing It’s not a copyright matter. Brianjd (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brianjd So it's a hosting matter then ? Or is it (ahem) a legal question of invasion of privacy and criminal extortion ? SinghIsFxing (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out they’re not an admin. Pinging @Kai Burghardt, Tm as other substantial contributors to this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: I am sorry, why are you pinging me? The discussion seemed to deviate from the actual topic and there were wild interpretations of the law, I kind of became disinterested. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 11:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This DR (in particular, SinghIsFxing’s conduct) has been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have replied to you over there, observing that you are harassing me for opposing your opinion SinghIsFxing (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing Pings don’t work unless accompanied by a fresh signature. (But, as an experienced MediaWiki user, you probably knew that already.) Brianjd (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mediawiki documentation you linked to is ambiguously worded and can be interpreted as only requiring that the comment be signed. SinghIsFxing (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghIsFxing I guess that’s technically true, but what I said is the more reasonable interpretation; ‘comment’ is not a well-defined concept across edits. (Also, what I said is supported by what I heard elsewhere.) Brianjd (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Those links were not meant for Commons volunteers" - then why you waste our time by posting them? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete and all of Category:Viona Ielegems too. They are within their rights (German law) to refuse permission to allow such an image to be published. I am unfamiliar with German law to hold an opinion as to whether it is reasonable to withdraw such permission, or to question such permission 13 years after the event and the upload here. But per COM:PRP and simplifying our workload here, and in the absence of any great value to the project in holding this material, if there is any question about any of it, then ditch the whole lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley No great value in holding any media about a subject with articles in four Wikipedias? Brianjd (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To us or to them? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After all, are they even well-sourced or accurate articles? There's no article at en:WP, the one place with some pretence at sourcing. The Dutch article begins "is a Belgian art photographer" and yet here we have a deletion request on the basis that they're not a photographer, and that it's somehow detrimental to them to have a photo of them holding a camera. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley Don’t we have a clear policy that we need to resolve these issues on the other projects first, then discuss deletion here? Brianjd (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. This is a permissions issue, more than scope, so that trumps INUSE.
These are images that are legally obtained and with a clear licence from the photographer, but where doubt is now cast on their release from the subject (a requirement, albeit a slightly unclear one, under German law). If this subject has chosen to withdraw their consent for an image years after it was photographed, on slim and subjective grounds, then there is a PRP-significant risk that they will now do that for other images too. It is thus safest for Commons to delete the whole set. Individual wikipedias should be notified of this, and they have their own option to keep or use any images they wish, subject to the relevant rules for each Wikipedia (which do frequently retain images that Commons cannot).
But if Commons cannot reasonably assume that these images are permissible and will remain so, they should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the person to write the details to info-commons@wikimedia.org or sending an official data removal request to privacy@wikimedia.org. With the information we currently have we can not make a proper decision. GPSLeo (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the point. When the "keep" brigade cannot justify the keep and "make the proper decision" then the proper, moral and principled thing to do is the delete this image and all those similar to it. Isn't that ultimately what the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is all about ? Will somebody PLEASE close this DR !SinghIsFxing (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Closing discussion with no recent contributions. If I understand correctly, there is no legal nor policy requirement to delete, and there is no consensus to delete. Image is in use; person shown has articles about them in multiple Wikipedias so seems a notable public figure. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Probably suffers the same lack of permission File:SNVI official logo.jpg had. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 15:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 16:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Creation and publication dates were mixed up at time of upload. This image was created in 1866, but it was made publicly available online in 2014, most likely not based on a published copy but from an unpublished private copy. Apologies for the error and the trouble. Image has already been removed from Wikipedia pages. P-Makoto (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the image copyright guidelines a once more, I realize that I was actually mistaken the second time, not the first. When I nominated this page for deletion I was under the impression that works published 2003 and later were protected for the later of either 95 years after publication date or 120 years after creation (if the author is not known). On rereading, I am realizing that the opposite is the case: works are protected only for the earlier of the two. Since this photograph was created in 1866, more than 120 years have elapsed since its creation. Therefore, the image does not to be deleted and should not be deleted since it can be used to usefully illustrate pages on Wikipedia. P-Makoto (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately did not thoroughly understand the subtle rules for unpublished works created before 1977 but published between 1989 and 2002. This image was created in 1866, and the particular source linked is from 2014, but the image was also published in 1992 in the book Mormon Odyssey (University of Illinois Press). Since the image was published as part of the book between March 1, 1989 and March 1, 2002, even though it was created before 1977 its copyright cannot expire before December 31, 2047, according to the copyright guidance material available on Wikipedia. Apologies for the error and the trouble. Image has already been removed from Wikipedia pages. P-Makoto (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor unfortunately got very confused by the subtle rules for unpublished works created before 1977 but published between 1989 and 2002. This image was created in 1866, and the particular source linked is from 2014, but the image was also published in 1992 in the book Mormon Odyssey. Since it was published between March 1, 1989 and March 1, 2002, even though it was created before 1977 its copyright cannot expire before December 31, 2047, according to the copyright guidance material available on Wikipedia. Apologies for the error and the trouble. Image has already been removed from Wikipedia pages. P-Makoto (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per above; no confirmation of free licensed status. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

US Patents post 1989 have copyrights. While this may have been surrendered to the Federal Government, there is no evidence that the government has freely licensed this patent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property rights over this patent are void. I will once again break down the reasons (which were previouslyt on the licensing information)
For all intents and purposes, this image is now property of the federal government and in the public domain. Evackost (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your line of reasoning is that while anything created by a Federal employee is PD, the Federal Government can and does own copyrighted material created by others which it does not license. An example of this is the Sacagawea dollar. Therefore, the fact that the patent has been forfeited to the government does not mean that it is in the public domain. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the government did not even bother changing the assignation of the patent to shift ownership (it is still assigned to First Principles). The forfeiture notice clearly says that the company gives up its intellectual property rights. There is no one else who owns the company, the company itself is formally dissolved, and the patent itself is now listed by USPTO as "abandoned."
I don't know why WM chooses to act like this is some great and holy text. It is a defunct patent for a non-technology pushed by a criminal conspiracy. Evackost (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Although the IP rights were "condemned, forfeited, and vested in the United States", this means that the United States Federal Government has had the copyright transferred to it. "But the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" (17 U.S.C. 105(a)), so this is not in the public domain. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Загрузил это же фото, только в обрезанном виде Mishalun.2 (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: G7. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation 90.61.9.177 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: could not find any evidence for this. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

CopyVio from https://www.comitedesgaleriesdart.com/en/galeries/andrehn-schiptjenko/ Culex (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Culex,
Je pense que cette photo peut rester sur wikipedia car elle est déjà utilisée sur de nombreux sites internet, parfois sans mention du photographe, pour présenter Andréhn-Schiptjenko:
- https://www.comitedesgaleriesdart.com/galeries/andrehn-schiptjenko/
- https://www.frieze.com/gallery/andrehn-schiptjenko-0
- https://www.svd.se/a/x3e1VR/vattenvasen-nara-beslaktade-med-surrealismen
- https://www.dn.se/kultur/existentiell-konst-i-sensuellt-svavande-former/
Je vous remercie pour votre réponse AgatheSQT (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. On Commons we do not allow copyright violations. Other websites should do the same, but alas, they do not. But on Commons, we do care about this. --Ellywa (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Sikander as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Unfortunately badly licensed on Flickr. But does the statement on the website override the explicit Flickr license? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the file should be deleted because metadata shows Author and Copyright holder as "Lauri Heikkinen"
The image description links to http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/kuvapankki/kuvaoikeudet-flickr/en.jsp which states:

The Prime Minister’s Office holds the right of use to all photographs and images. The photographs and images can be used in connection with news and for other information dissemination purposes. It is also possible by separate agreement to use them in textbooks, for instance. The photographer and holder of the right of use must be acknowledged in connection with the photograph or image. The photographs and images may not be modified or altered without permission, utilised inappropriately or contrary to accepted principles of morality, or adopted for marketing, advertising or any other commercial purposes. Users may not transfer publication rights to a third party.

Based on that it seems to me the upload to Flickr is unfortunately misusing the {{cc-by-2.0}} Creative Commons license. // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Lauri Heikkinen has been working for the Finnish Government since 2014, so no concern on license laundering. The image is published through the official Flickr account of the government, they should know what license to choose before uploading it. IMO the Flickr license overrides the statement on the website. Similar case was ended up kept by the community. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable. Good to know, thanks! // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion, we can safely assume that the Finnish government licensed the photo correctly on their Flickr account based on the working relationship with the photographer. --Ellywa (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I uploaded it by mistake Alain2001 (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]