Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/12/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![46 File:"forza napule".jpg](#File:"forza_napule".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_ÚŠw234-.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Unsicherheit bei Format und Lizenzangabe Adkott2 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
copyvio (adv.) Mateus2019 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete as G10, advertising. Belbury (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Belbury. --Wutsje 18:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: both files already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
uploaded by accident, wrong file Sissy honeybunch (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
privacy uploader Hejnjahns (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Question How can there be a privacy issue when there is no EXIF and no geocoordinates? The problem I see is that the lack of an EXIF puts the authorship of this photo in doubt. Did you take this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot (COM:DW) of a copyrighted video without evidence of a free license. While the uploader may have taken the screenshot, it is doubtful that they are the copyright holder of the underlying video. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 20:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Not an official cover, and the licensing is wrong, as well. Sricsi (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Google Earth images are under copyright MB (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Google Earth images are able to be used if proper attribution is given. Saven.ganders (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. "Fair use" is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1
|
|---|
|
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 + is that literally a photo of a screen? Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44 talk to me 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 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 garbage Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC) 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 junk
Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 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
Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS junk files Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) 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.
More OOS junk
Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Out of scope junk Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS crap junk Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No copyright info + OOS Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. Yann (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) 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 I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Load of OOS crap 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.
More OOS crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert me if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC) 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.
Oos garbage Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC) 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.
That was fast. More junk as usual Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted The images were deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nom, some apparent copyviols from social media. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC) 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 crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 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.
Garbagé de OOS Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 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.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
_2.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_posted_on_Instagram_CPvlHbYFa7t(JPG).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:1
[edit]Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual collection of Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Oos garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual oos crap
Dronebogus (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Derivative work of logo. Source country is unknown, so we cannot be sure in freedom of panorama. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Personal spam and potential copyright violations
- File:Azmy Ehab21.jpg
- File:BALSA EUCLIDES.webp
- File:JARDIM BALNEARIO EUCLIDES.webp
- File:MAPA EUCLIDES.webp
- File:Moatazelmasry1632004.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
From looking at pages like this and this, this image is actually an album cover and it is unlikely that this is the uploader's own work. Even then I would suspect that this is a work for hire and permission is required from the artist. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable URL? COM:TOO? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone recognize this symbol? I've never seen this "sacred symbol of hope" before. Unused. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal image that seems out of scope for Commons. Nv8200p (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal image that seems out of scope for Commons. Nv8200p (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused image of unidentified dog with no educational context. Nv8200p (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Pictures of dogs are in scope, and this one is usable. The fact that it's not in use is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nv8200pa Keep The category Unidentified dogs suggests that unidentified dogs can be in scope. This is a high quality image; you can even see the Ford logo (which is in the public domain, so no concerns about violating COM:DM by mentioning it here) on the floor in front of the passenger seat. We have a location and an author name. It is public domain (CC0); it seems obvious to me that we should prefer media with more freedom in the same way as we prefer images with higher quality. Brianjd (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No use. Out of project scope. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I concur, COM: SELFIE. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not photography, but sketch, so not PD in Poland. Matlin (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Artist died 2018, not free yet Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Artist died 2018, not free yet Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Painted in 2022, needs OTRS from artist Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Cropped from a bigger photo found in 2018 - https://cineuropa.org/en/interview/365969/ - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Previously published in places such as https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/13/iraqi-parliament-elects-new-president-abdul-latif-rashid; no evidence that the uploader owns the copyright. David Biddulph (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, this is COM: SELFIE. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 39.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 33.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 32.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 30.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 29.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 26.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 25.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 19.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 16.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 15.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 13.jpg
- File:Шедевр от Толғанай 12.jpg
Mitte27 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Author is unknown and the source claimed that "available widely online", should be COM:NETCOPYVIO A1Cafel (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The nae of the photographer and the pseudonyme do not match. Also, the picture was on the internet already in 2013 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The nae of the photographer and the pseudonyme do not match. Also, the picture was on the internet already in 2013 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dontuseurrealname (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright violations - two files of copyrighted logos, and a third that seems to be an image taken from a film trailer.
- File:The Amazing Spider-Man 3 logo.jpg
- File:Venom Symbiote (TASM 2).jpg
- File:D7e2gin-6ed969e2-a77c-4dae-b98d-c3e7d07624c0.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-M.nelson (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously this is not own work. Kursant504 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously this is not own work. Kursant504 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Nina Mahr) M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot from a video (see previous version with letterboxing), not own work. -M.nelson (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Both the bird and the background are blurred. The bird is barely recognisable. The image has no educational value. Tagooty (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems pretty unusable per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
non free image taken from https://mobile.twitter.com/voedingsweetje/with_replies Hoyanova (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielRangel30 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Esporte Clube Cocotá.png
- File:28-7-2021-CTPW04A93Q.png
- File:Logomarca do Santa Mônica Rede de Ensino.png
- File:Novo-logo.png
- File:Logo-png-1.png
- File:Colégio Santa Mônica.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
copyviol: photo taken from social networks, cf. areanapoli.it as example — danyele 16:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
![16:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/12/17#c-Danyele-20221217163500-File:"forza_napule".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
![00:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/12/17#c-Didym-20221224002000-File:"forza_napule".jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Potentially out of scope? A personal photo of an unidentified men A1Cafel (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not the famous actor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a COM:DW A1Cafel (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo. unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Nominated by User:IagoQnsi who stated: "This photo appears on page 145 of The Chanticleer, 1978. A copyright notice appears on page 270." Fma12 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, the notice is rather clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
High quality professional type photo with no exif, unlikely to be own work. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Google Earth images are under copyright MB (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure exactly how Wikipedia requires copyright info to be put into the file. If I need to add anything, please tell me how and I will do it. I have followed Google's attribution rules to the best of my ability. Saven.ganders (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Saven.ganders The attribution is good enough; anyway, attributions can be fixed without deletion.
- The problem here is that Commons basically requires material to be free for all purposes, including commercial purposes; see Commons:Licensing. And the Google guidelines you link to say: Google Earth content may not be used for any commercial or promotional purposes. Brianjd (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Other map sources are allowed on Commons, such as OpenStreetMap (see {{OpenStreetMap}}) and Natural Earth. Brianjd (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for the clarification. Saven.ganders (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Other map sources are allowed on Commons, such as OpenStreetMap (see {{OpenStreetMap}}) and Natural Earth. Brianjd (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
copyvio from https://vergeetbarbara.be see also (c) sign in upload Hoyanova (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
copyvio from https://vergeetbarbara.be see also {c} studio 100 in upload Hoyanova (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
no source no permission Hoyanova (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No proper attribution. No CC license included here where the screenshot was taken, nor here at the channel's about page. Engr. Smitty (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Amateur porn, not educational Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete COM: PORN. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 15:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be spam and also just OOS per “no obvious use” Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Stolen porn Dronebogus (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ALIA MUKHERJEE (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work – Low resolution and quality pictures, majority can be found on the internet from before upload date, for example here.
- File:"POILA BAISHAK"- BENGALI NEW YEAR-001.jpg
- File:Sharma-tea-house-kolkata-WEST BENGAL-007.jpg
- File:SHERBATS & SYRUPS-NORTH KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-010.jpg
- File:PARANTHEWALI GALI-DESHAPRIYA PARK-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-05.jpg
- File:KESAR LASSI- COLLEGE STREET-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-006.jpg
- File:SWEET LASSI-RANGDEBASANTI DHABA-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-004.jpg
- File:MALAI LASSI-Chowringhee ROAD-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-003.jpg
- File:SWEET LASSI-PARK STREET-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-008.jpg
- File:ICE-CREAM LASSI SHAKE-HATIBAGAN-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-009.jpg
- File:MANGO LASSI-ESPLANADE-KOLKATA-WEST BENGAL-2.jpg
TFerenczy (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
not in use, nor description, unuseful Ezarateesteban 23:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. Delete: {{Pd-textlogo}}, but so low-resolution that it's not realistically useful for an educational purpose (COM:SCOPE). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete COM: SELFIE. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 15:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
likely taken from https://web.facebook.com/DPSUkraine/posts/1446310895520654/, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Copied from Facebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Copied from Facebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Copied from Facebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Very small and without useful EXIF. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, see [1] Platte U.N.V.E.U. 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
![[1]](https://www.odeg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Unternehmensseite/linien-fahrplaene/gesamtnetz/221211_odeg_bb_mv_sa_s_endbahnhoefe_221017.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lithuania A1Cafel (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Estonia A1Cafel (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Estonia A1Cafel (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Per user's request WorldExplorer120322 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:United against Trump in Berlin
[edit]The wall seems to be a temporarily display, and it cannot benefit from FOP
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29692223130).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29692236630).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29692237590).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29902592801).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29951899216).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29951899706).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29986057515).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29986058095).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29986058775).jpg
- File:Berlin United against Trump (29986065795).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused image. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Nv8200p (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused low-resolution image that adds nothing educationally distinct from better quality images. Nv8200p (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I have uploaded but realise against guideline because from Nigeria. Oblafemi602 (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sure what Nigeria has to do with anything, but the EXIF data does not match the uploader. Likely copyvio. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
not self created; wripped from en:File:Tayyarlogoarabic.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo: a 'V', a line and some Arabic words Jcb (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. However, it already underwent discussion above and was kept.
Personally, I think this is worth another discussion. I am not convinced this is PD-textlogo.
Courtesy ping Jcb. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No proof has been provided that {{PD-Thailand}} applies – neither author nor date of first publication has been given. AFBorchert (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No proof for {{PD-Iran}} has been provided, i.e. neither first date of publication nor its author are given, no information about its source has been provided. AFBorchert (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
No proof for {{PD-Thailand}} has been provided, neither author nor date of first publication were provided. AFBorchert (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No COM:FOP France, meaning we need permission from the sculptor as well as from the photographer. This photo might be allowed on Wikipedias directly (e.g. en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights/en:Template:FoP-USonly) but not Commons. -M.nelson (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Per [2], the current presidential palace started construction in 1973, authored by local Laotian architect Khamphoung Phonekeo. There is no acceptable freedom of panorama in Laos. Commercial license authorization from Khamphoung Phonekeo is required (or his heirs if he is already dead today). None of the nominated photos show the palace in an "incidental" manner.
The most heavily used photos can be transferred locally to English and German Wikipedias (that allow unfree buildings of no-FOP countries in their fullest resolutions), pending a change in Laotian copyright law. Unsure about Lao Wikipedia though.
- File:2013 Presidential palace Vientiane.jpg
- File:20171118 Pałac Prezydencki w Wientianie 3038 DxO.jpg
- File:20171118 Pałac Prezydencki w Wientianie 3243 DxO.jpg
- File:Front-of-building-of-horkham-Take-on-the-morning1-1024x449.jpg
- File:Laos, Vientiane, Palais présidentiel.jpg
- File:PRESENTIAL PALACE VIENTIANE LAOS FEB 2012 (6839167302).jpg
- File:Presidential Palace - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Presidential Palace in Vientiane 1.jpg
- File:Presidential Palace in Vientiane 2.jpg
- File:Presidential Palace in Vientiane 3.jpg
- File:Presidential Palace of Laos at the gate.jpg
- File:Presidential Palace of Vientiane (south).jpg
- File:Presidential Palace of Vientiane from the south.jpg
- File:PRESIDENTIAL PALACE VIENTIANE LAOS FEB 2012 (6839169372).jpg
- File:PRESIDENTIAL PALACE VIENTIANE LAOS FEB 2012 (6839221170).jpg
- File:Vientiane - Presidential Palace - 0001.jpg
- File:Vientiane - Vientiane - Panorama 0001.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by pending a change in Laotian copyright law? Is there a chance that those pictures would be ok to keep in Commons anytime soon? ---- Jakubhal 12:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jakubhal: I do not mean that there is a chance for a change in the Laotian copyright law sooner or later. Rather I meant that as long as the law is as it is – remaining unchanged – the photos will remain redacted ("deletion" only hides files from non-admins) and only local wikis that accept full-resolution photos of unfree architectural works can host these photos. Right now, I do not see any indication that Laos will be more friendly to Wikimedia community in terms of allowing copyrighted works and art to be hosted here under commercial licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 local wikis that accept full-resolution photos of unfree … works I expect there are no such wikis, for any type of work. Brianjd (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)- @Brianjd: there is. English Wikipedia only respects U.S. law, even if it is the No. 1 wiki being accessed by us here (very few use Tagalog Wikipedia here). See w:en:Template:FoP-USonly. Enwiki has accepted photos of unfree architectural works of countries with no suitable FOP — in their fullest resolutions — by claiming that lex loci protectionis is applicable to them. German Wikipedia is another one; they have a template that states a certain photo (of an unfree building or sculpture of no FOP country) is allowed on German Wikipedia due to German lex loci protectionis, so seemingly implying that German Wikipedia only follows German copyright law (I cannot recall that template however). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Yes, I have seen so many references to fair use that I forgot this was something different. I didn’t read this page properly. Anyway, I don’t think these lex loci protectionis claims are well-known, and I was only vaguely aware of them prior to your explanation, so it’s good that you explained them here. Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: there is. English Wikipedia only respects U.S. law, even if it is the No. 1 wiki being accessed by us here (very few use Tagalog Wikipedia here). See w:en:Template:FoP-USonly. Enwiki has accepted photos of unfree architectural works of countries with no suitable FOP — in their fullest resolutions — by claiming that lex loci protectionis is applicable to them. German Wikipedia is another one; they have a template that states a certain photo (of an unfree building or sculpture of no FOP country) is allowed on German Wikipedia due to German lex loci protectionis, so seemingly implying that German Wikipedia only follows German copyright law (I cannot recall that template however). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jakubhal: I do not mean that there is a chance for a change in the Laotian copyright law sooner or later. Rather I meant that as long as the law is as it is – remaining unchanged – the photos will remain redacted ("deletion" only hides files from non-admins) and only local wikis that accept full-resolution photos of unfree architectural works can host these photos. Right now, I do not see any indication that Laos will be more friendly to Wikimedia community in terms of allowing copyrighted works and art to be hosted here under commercial licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by pending a change in Laotian copyright law? Is there a chance that those pictures would be ok to keep in Commons anytime soon? ---- Jakubhal 12:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Heaney died in 1984, unlikely to be 2021 own work. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Low quality, no exif, likely taken from https://www.radionacional.com.ar/tag/mimi-maura/ or similar. PCP Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
copyright protected image see https://stichtingika.nl/ which clearly states (c) on the bottom next to the image Hoyanova (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's removed now... 2A02:A44F:2D10:1:117:5B24:F9CE:184F 11:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of Argentina
[edit]- File:Argentina 500 pesos back 2016.jpg
- File:Argentina bcra 200 pesos 2016.00.00 pnl a 00000000 f.jpg
- Below images are part of enlarged Argentine banknotes.
- File:Bille Billete.JPG
- File:Billete argentino aumentado.jpg
- File:Billete argentino.JPG
- File:Billete de 100 pesos Argentinos.jpg
- File:Billete de 100 pesos.jpg
- File:Billete de 20.JPG
- File:Billetito.JPG
- File:Detalle numero billete 10.jpg
- File:EL BILLETE.jpg
- File:Escudito.JPG
- File:Moneda papel.jpg
- File:Papel "Moneda".jpg
- File:Papel moneda.jpg
- File:WIN 20150622 082318.JPG
Ox1997cow (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of Argentina
[edit]- File:1.000 Pesos (2017) - RS.jpg
- File:1.000 Pesos (2017) - VS.jpg
- File:100 Pesos (2018) - RS.jpg
- File:100 Pesos (2018) - VS.jpg
- File:200 Pesos (2016) - RS.jpg
- File:200 Pesos (2016) - VS.jpg
- File:50 Pesos (2018) - RS.jpg
- File:50 Pesos (2018) - VS.jpg
- File:500 Pesos (2016) - RS.jpg
- File:500 Pesos (2016) - VS.jpg
- File:Cristina Kirchner presentado billete de las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo.jpg
- File:Presentación billete de Eva Perón 02.jpg
- File:Presentación del billete de Malvinas 01.jpg
- File:Presentación del billete de Malvinas 02.jpg
_-_RS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_VS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_RS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_VS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_RS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_VS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_RS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_VS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_RS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_VS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ox1997cow (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
many files uploaded from Arabic Wikipedia
[edit]- File:Barasi.png
- File:Emalogo.png
- File:Emond.jpg
- File:Emond-sa.jpg
- File:Hapcenter.png
- File:IMG-20190625-WA0000.jpg
- File:IMG-20190625-WA0001.jpg
- File:Infosoft logo.png
- File:Infosoft Logo.png
- File:MCE LOGO.jpg
- File:Logo ouarsenis.png
- File:Logo2019.png
- File:Karar Al-Obeidi - كرار العبيدي.jpg
- File:MohtawaLogo.svg
- File:Mohammed Al Shaer.jpg
- File:Meriem ferhaoui.jpg
- File:Omarahmedtika.png
- File:Reuos.png
- File:Pedia.png
- File:Sharif Anas.jpg
- File:Screenshot 20190408-102638 Video Player.jpg
- File:البرعصي الدولية Barasi International.png
- File:برنامج إيجار التابع لوزارة الإسكان.png
- File:Diwan alfuraty.jpg
- File:Yokabed the daughter of Levi.png
- File:Viitor Foundation.png
- File:Vpark.jpg
- File:الشعار المنسقية.jpg
- File:المنظمة العربية للطيران المدني.png
- File:تونس الخيرية.png
- File:حساب محتوى لايف.png
- File:سكاي برس.png
- File:شعار الحزب الاشتراكي الموحد.png
- File:شعار ابو حجازى للتوريدات العمومية.png
- File:شعار منصة محتوى همم.png
- File:شعار قناة زايد الرقمية.svg
- File:شعار جمعية تيسير الزواج بالاحساء.jpg
- File:شعار القيادة العامة لشرطة أبوظبي.jpg
- File:شعار الفلسطينية لإسناد الطلبة.png
- File:شعار وكالة ماس.png
- File:صحيفة الأيام السعودية.jpg
- File:مؤسسة الشعانبة للتأصيل والتنمية.png
- File:ما أفل لهم نجم الا وبزغ نجم غيره.jpg
- File:مجلة الحكمة اليمانية.jpg
- File:مشجر الأشراف الكتبية أشراف الحجاز الأحمديون.jpg
- File:مستخدم مؤكد تلقائيًا ويكيبيديا العربية.png
- File:مكتب لغة الخط للخدمات الطلابية محمد.jpg
I reviewed Category:Uploaded from Arabic Wikipedia using UploadWizard and I found many invalid files, all files here are fair use and copyrighted logos or covers. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This file has a watermark. Fangusu (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Not a valid rationale. Watermarks can be removed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept: covered by the permission. --Jcb (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
If the file's source is specified as being from a website AND if the file has a watermark, then this is a copyright violation. Fangusu (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Fangusu
Speedy keep No, if those things are true then the file is likely to be a copyright violation if there is no other evidence. In this case, there is other evidence, including a VRT ticket. Brianjd (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 16:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can’t find the photo at the stated source, unable to verify the license. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adeletron 3030: I just saw when you click the link, it brings you to the homepage instead of bringing it to the offender's sex offender page. Look up David Kaye on the sex registry and he is literally right there. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: While I found the photo at the source, I don't see any indication there that it was taken by someone working for the US federal government as claimed. Since it's a web site of the state of Virginia, the default is to assume the photo was taken by someone working for that state. --Rosenzweig τ 23:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of the GFDL. The GFDL says "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.". This doesn't fall under Commons:Licensing § Acceptable licenses, as it prevents derivative works. --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 10:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: it is a spoken word version of the Wikipedia article, not a modified version.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Accipiter Gentilis Q., it's a spoken version of the exact words of the GFDL, which prevents derivative works (as stated above). That's incompatible with Commons:Licensing § Acceptable licenses, which states that "[p]ublication of derivative work must be allowed". --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 14:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The ‘article’ in question is en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is (except for a notice about the license migration) just the text of the GFDL document. This is not a Wikipedia article!
- There are two issues here:
- Changes involved in going from the text form of the GFDL document to the audio form. These changes may or may not be technically forbidden, but they are unlikely to be a problem in practice.
- Further changes that future users might want to make to the audio form, including changes to the wording. These changes are the problem: Commons policy demands that such changes be permitted, but the license of the GFDL document forbids them.
- Brianjd (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have written above: "a spoken word version of the documentation licence", not "a spoken version of a Wikipedia article"". Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC) P.S. On the other hand, it seems to me that the lack of such a file will force a blind person to ask someone to read the text to them, which introduces a significant limitation.
- @Matr1x-101 and Accipiter Gentilis Q.: Yes, it is silly that we can’t host an audio version of this page when hosting audio versions of other pages is standard practice. The text version is already an exception to the rule that text is released under CC BY-SA (and that exception is made on Commons too: Commons:GNU Free Documentation License). Can we declare an exception here too? Brianjd (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd, we can't make an exception here. If you want/need to make an exception, move the file to enwiki and ask there. --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Matr1x-101 This isn’t like fair use cases. Anyway, the file is used at en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 and equivalent pages on (at least) the following projects: eswiki, euwiki, incubator/Wp/yua, la.wikiquote, mlwiki, nlwiki, plwiki, ptwiki, siwiki, zh-yuewiki. Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd, to keep the file, we'd have to make changes to Commons:Licensing to detail exceptions like this. That would require consensus, so we'd need to create an RfC or some other kind of proposal on the file's talk page. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Matr1x-101 This isn’t like fair use cases. Anyway, the file is used at en:Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 and equivalent pages on (at least) the following projects: eswiki, euwiki, incubator/Wp/yua, la.wikiquote, mlwiki, nlwiki, plwiki, ptwiki, siwiki, zh-yuewiki. Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd, we can't make an exception here. If you want/need to make an exception, move the file to enwiki and ask there. --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Matr1x-101 and Accipiter Gentilis Q.: Yes, it is silly that we can’t host an audio version of this page when hosting audio versions of other pages is standard practice. The text version is already an exception to the rule that text is released under CC BY-SA (and that exception is made on Commons too: Commons:GNU Free Documentation License). Can we declare an exception here too? Brianjd (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have written above: "a spoken word version of the documentation licence", not "a spoken version of a Wikipedia article"". Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC) P.S. On the other hand, it seems to me that the lack of such a file will force a blind person to ask someone to read the text to them, which introduces a significant limitation.
- Note Previously kept at DR: see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GFDL (English).ogg. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WMF:Licensing policy prohibits Commons to have an EDP. A4531826 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For practical reasons (i.e. being able to link to an internal copy of the license on file description pages), the text of free licenses is a special exception to our licensing policy. It might not be explicitly stated anywhere, but given the number of policy pages that link to Commons:GNU Free Documentation License, surely this practice is de facto accepted as policy-compliant. And if it is OK to host the text itself, then I see no reason why making an audio version of it (which is important for people with visual disabilities) would be prohibited. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts, then we'd have to make changes to Commons:Licensing to detail exceptions. That would require consensus, so we'd need to create an RfC or some other kind of proposal on the file's talk page. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 14:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: by the nomination's logic, we can't host the GFDL's text at Commons:GNU Free Documentation License (even though it remains a valid license for some files). That is an obviously absurd result that we should not cause. We should abide by the previous consensus regarding this file. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels, then we need to make it clear with a template that the GFDL is not released under a free license. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 11:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Matr1x-101, King of Hearts, and Mdaniels5757: Commons:Licensing § Acceptable licenses says (emphasis added): All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license …. What is material? Does it include text? Most other statements in the licensing policy are clear: they apply only to files. Brianjd (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly related: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Is legislation free? (regarding fair use in Commons namespace) Brianjd (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
не работает нихуя VasyaRogov (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Всё работает, просто долго грузится, файлы тяжёлые. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not the Hezbollah flag, only a personal creation to fill in infoboxes and do as if this was the real flag. Looking at File:Hizbollah flag.jpg shows this is far from reality. Moumou82 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- No copyrighted material here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As explained here (in French) or here, that weird flag is used on infoboxes on multiple Wikipedias because they can't use the real flag on infoboxes because of the w:WP:FAIRUSE rules. Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- weak Keep since new upload due to the fact that the new image is much more likely to look original protected image. In any case, if kept : usage must be better handled depending on sites because of the usage of copyrighted logo depending on countries (fake logo is a violation of trademark for some countries but not for commons). Loreleil (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikrobølgeovn (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per previous section. The claim was 21:55, 16 December 2022 by Εὐθυμένης that "This logo exceeds the threshold of originality and therefore is subject to copyright." without indication of which country's threshold was exceeded. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - It could be that the original nominator regarded the addition of Arabic script as crossing the threshold of originality. Remove the script, and there is nothing even remotely copyrighted here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Files on Colorbykevin
[edit]It seems to me that these colorized images are out of scope. The colors are, as noted in the files description, speculative These are all historical images and I think that using the original B&W is far preferable to using speculative colors
- File:Afgan1987 colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Burned Kampong by Colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Centurion Training in Israel.jpg
- File:Chaplain in Tangerang colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Chŏng Pong-uk colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Denmark-Freecorps.jpg
- File:Drie-personen-voorstellende-de-legeronderdelen-Landmacht-KNIL-en-Marine colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Giora Epstein enters Mirage III aircraft in the six-day war colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Indonesian Caught by Dutch Marine Brigade Colorized by Colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Micheal O Coileain Funeral.jpg
- File:P-51 Mustang with shark beak in Jogja colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:PRRI colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Police chief Hoegeng Iman Santoso Colorized by Colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Polish Militia (ZOMO) in action during the martial law in Poland colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Protest meeting at Universitetsplassen colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:R.E Martadinata colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Soviet Soldier in Gardez colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:The arrest of Anton Mussert colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Walking in Hawaii by colorbykevin.jpg
- File:Wojciech-Jaruzelski in 1968 colorized by colorbykevin.jpg
_in_action_during_the_martial_law_in_Poland_colorized_by_colorbykevin.jpg){kind=link}
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep any free image. Some of these are in use. While you may not agree that colorized images are appropriate, clearly others disagree and it is not our place to make those editorial decisions. If the underlying free B/W image is within scope, then quality colorization should generally be kept as they may be used. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Even if they are speculative, these colours are not totally out of range. So I agree with IronGargoyle that the images are useful. We also routinely keep images of coats of arms where the actual depiction of the symbols and the detailed hues and shades of colours are subject to artistic freedom as long as the heraldic description of the arms is correctly reproduced. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Several are COM:INUSE; it is up to the individual projects to decide whether they prefer to use the B&W or colorized image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adnane tebbaa as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7. Too old for speedy deletion/G7, but no objection to deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Not clearly useful, granting deletion per request. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adnane tebbaa as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7. Too old for speedy deletion/G7, but no objection to deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Not clearly useful, granting deletion per request. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The previous photos uploaded by this user have been photos already published elsewhere. Again there is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. David Biddulph (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seem indeed to have been cropped from here.--Aréat (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment Just amazing, the president of not such a small power, and there is not even a free photo for him... I remember at one time it was like this with the Prime Minister of Slovakia Eduard Heger. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 12:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Copied from Facebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Si el que subió la imagen es un bibliotecario italiano el mismo va a cerrar este capítulo como Keep; aquí algunos son más "iguales" que otros. Ellos pueden subir fotos de Facebook o sus propias imágenes como si fueran George Clooney... — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.25.22.138 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The uploader would have to go through COM:VRT to show that they took the picture. If they are not here to show that, it will unfortunately have to be hidden. As for some people being more equal than others, I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's nothing I deal in. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Levietanh416 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems to be a personal image, even self-promotion
Tryvix1509 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: both files already deleted by Krd for missing permission. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Argentina.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I do not wish to have this photo in Wikimedia. I never gave permission for that. 2A02:1810:A595:E00:CD67:D49A:8AF7:DB6B 09:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It looks to me like the upload to Flickr is the problem. Have you complained to the uploader there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not wish to have this photo in Wikimedia. I never gave permission for that. Viona.ielegems (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Please contact with Flickr. We have nothing to do here. --Kadı Message 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Incompatible Licence on Flickr. The licence on Flickr is NC-ND which is incompatible with Commons licencing. Furthermore, the image was uploaded by a bot and thereafter reviewed by a malfunctioning bot which is now blocked. These aspects were never considered at the previous DRs. Since the licence controversy on Flicker has been resolved, either the corresponding change NC-ND is made at the licence over here, or else the file is deleted. NB: The event is in Germany,and the uploader Slick-o-Bot is running on a data centre in Germany. SinghIsFxing (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg for extensive debate around these issues, involving another image depicting the same subject. Brianjd (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The issue over there is quite different. Here it is about an NC-ND Flickr licence which is incompatible with Commons licencing, and the plethora of malfunctioing Flickr mass upload bots which were all terminated by 2015. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
- @SinghIsFxing The file description indicates that it was license reviewed and, at the time, had a (irrevocable) CC BY 2.0 license. I don’t know what malfunctions the bot had, but I assume that the reviews are still valid; otherwise they should be removed. Brianjd (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage. Hence he seems to have corrected himself on Flickr for all his uploads. Hence Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently and this file cannot be kept on Commons.SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing This seems to be conflating personality rights and copyright issues, as already discussed at the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Brianjd No, this is a LICENCING issue which involves assignment of commercial rights by a person who himself never had the commercial exploitation rights. To take an example, if you buy a stolen car and the thief is caught then do you become the owner of the car or can morally sell it onwards to an innocent person ? SinghIsFxing (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is an interesting series of problems here (1) The photographer changes his licence on Flickr to NC-ND, (2) The FlickrReviewBot is admittedly malfunctioninhg and was stopped and (3) All mass Flickr uploads were stopped in 2015. All these circumstances combined need the retainers to prove that the present licence is correct and valid. Good Luck doing that. SinghIsFxing (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing I’m not responding to you anymore, until you can demonstrate that you have actually read the previous comments and provide specific responses to them. Brianjd (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage" - why? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently" - not really. They do not revoke earlier license, but maybe original license was tainted/invalid anyway. But there is no explanation why it would be Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing This seems to be conflating personality rights and copyright issues, as already discussed at the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Under german / EU law, The photographer never had the authority or model release to licence it for commercial and derivative usage. Hence he seems to have corrected himself on Flickr for all his uploads. Hence Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. Also, those licence changes automatically apply subsequently and this file cannot be kept on Commons.SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SinghIsFxing The file description indicates that it was license reviewed and, at the time, had a (irrevocable) CC BY 2.0 license. I don’t know what malfunctions the bot had, but I assume that the reviews are still valid; otherwise they should be removed. Brianjd (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The issue over there is quite different. Here it is about an NC-ND Flickr licence which is incompatible with Commons licencing, and the plethora of malfunctioing Flickr mass upload bots which were all terminated by 2015. SinghIsFxing (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC).
- Image was set to NC-ND before 2019, see https://web.archive.org/web/20190125215804/https://www.flickr.com/photos/soul_stealer/6600139665/ Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "either the corresponding change NC-ND is made at the licence over here, or else the file is deleted" - there is also a third possibility: we can and will keep file under CC-BY-2.0 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- " reviewed by a malfunctioning bot which is now blocked." bot was blocked for marking everything is failed. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlickreviewR Is there any indicator that bot had also accidents with falsely claiming that image is compatible? And that this file was under a different license? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- CC-BY-2.0 was probably tainted anyway because Flickr uploader did not have rights to commercial (German/Belgium) without consent. Nominator says here no permission was given to photographer. Flickr Uploader probably corrected himself by changing to NC-ND. We should also respect that change now that we are aware of it (it is also required in terms of the actual licence BTW because of the compulsory attribution clause) and amend our licence to NC-ND.
- You are correct the earlier licence is not revoked, but at the same time it needs to be refreshed in terms of the attribution clause. It turns on the reason the licence was amended on Flickr, if it was due to a mistake of the photographer then our licence is also tainted and we have a moral duty to inform subsequent reusers.
- Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless. It made no difference if it was a good attribution or a bad attribution, all of them were being approved.
- It is better to err on the side of caution and delete this file considering that the model is also asking for it saying she never gave permission for it to be uploaded to Wikimedia. The clear meaning is that she never consented to the image being publicly shared. The burden of proof now shifts onto the photographer or to the Slickbot operator for the image to be retained. SinghIsFxing (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless." - can you link example edit? For example in this file was NOT approved. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- In the link you gave, it seems confirmed from this diff that the bot was malfunctioning when reviewed by a human. Also I can't be asked to prove a negative. That proof has to be given by the bot operator. SinghIsFxing (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- "CC-BY-2.0 was probably tainted anyway because Flickr uploader did not have rights to commercial (German/Belgium) without consent." what is the reason for this claim? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- That would be COM:CSCR#Belgium, although I personally would not agree with way it is (incorrectly) written in the Commons policy. SinghIsFxing (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Soon after this upload the malfunctioning bot was marking everything as attribution failed, but the files were being approved nonetheless." - can you link example edit? For example in this file was NOT approved. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=119773083){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion and decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viona Ielegems at the victorian picnic 2009.jpg. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Previously published & copyrighted at https://kurdsatenglish.com/news.aspx?id=636&mapid=2 - no evidence that the uploader can justify the claim of "own work". David Biddulph (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Proud to be circumcised !.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep not enough dark skinned penis images Dronebogus (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, there are more than enough. 186.175.123.144 17:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Keep The quality is not the best, but it forms a set with the uploader’s other upload (Proud to be circumcised!.jpg), showing a dark-skinned penis with flaccid and erect lengths. The darkness is clearly shown along the full length of the penis, including the glans. Brianjd (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I consider the subject valuable enough that I took the unusual step of leaving a message on the uploader’s talk page asking for better photos. The photos nominated for deletion are recent, so hopefully the uploader will see the message. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- You should give him your personal mail for more photos. You two can exchange as many obscene images as you like. No more of this stuff is needed here. Delete. 186.174.25.62 10:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- I consider the subject valuable enough that I took the unusual step of leaving a message on the uploader’s talk page asking for better photos. The photos nominated for deletion are recent, so hopefully the uploader will see the message. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep --Trade (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Brianjd Dronebogus (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure, but perhaps the map on this billboard is under copyright. Another user, Tyk, warned me of this possibility. Dcapillae (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Book cover HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 07:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Martin Sg. as no permission (No permission since). Since it's a logo, I think we should debate the application of COM:TOO to it. I think it exceeds TOO and therefore should be deleted, but also that it shouldn't be speedily deleted, so as to give other wiki sites the chance to discuss whether to upload it locally as fair use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I don’t think you need to worry too much about delaying deletion for the sake of other projects. Other Wikimedia projects should be notified by bot; for example, see en:Talk:Montreux Jazz Festival#A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion, where this file is mentioned. Files can also be temporarily undeleted to allow transfer to another project under fair use.
- (I agree that this file exceeds TOO.) Brianjd (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I had a personal interest in allowing discussion at Wikivoyage, where I am an administrator/bureaucrat. Anyway, I don't think COM:TOO is a reason for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please delete. No case of fair use either. This is an artwort of Giovani Riva, who created this "collage" as poster for the 50th edition of the festival using all previous posters ([3]), many of them created by famous artists. The logo used here is a work of the famous artist Jean Tinguely, who used the writing in his poster for the festival ([4]). It was later adapted as logo → de:Datei:Montreux Jazz Festival Logo.svg. --Albinfo (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I had a personal interest in allowing discussion at Wikivoyage, where I am an administrator/bureaucrat. Anyway, I don't think COM:TOO is a reason for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a proper svg but an embedded raster image. Replaced by File:British Royal Navy OF-6 (new).svg. Officer781 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. --Wow (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
poor photo of a photo (?), not enough description, no category = no real ency use Pibwl (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: it's a drawing of a room in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, compare the title inside the photo and the other uploads by this user. It has a VRT permission tag, so presumably no copyright issues. The quality is less good, but it might be salvageable by a graphic artist. --Rosenzweig τ 20:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). 1927 photograph (which will enter U.S. public domain soon). Bad license (I don't see any basis for CC license), not great source (Pinterest). Author being anonymous seems dubious. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-EU-no author disclosure is the correct license from an image in Paris from 1927. Author is anonymous, no creator attributed found by all searches, which is how anonymous is determined. --RAN (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you've done that search, I feel a lot more confident since the uploader has made sloppy mistakes in attribution and thus I was not completely confident in their assertion that the author is unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. Without a proper source etc. we can't even verify the 1927 date is correct, let alone the claim that the photo is anonymous. I also don't know where the "image in Paris" comes from, the image page still accessible via archive.org does not have it (and the original source appears to have disappeared). So we don't even know which country's law to apply. Therefore, far too many unknowns. --Rosenzweig τ 21:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Author requesting file for deletion. Per COM:REDUNDANT, this file has been superseded by File:Walter Mondale 1977 vice presidential portrait (cropped).jpg, which has higher quality. This file is also unused. Wow (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, other variants available, not in use. --Ellywa (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Author requesting file for deletion. Per COM:REDUNDANT, this file has been superseded by File:Walter Mondale 1977 vice presidential portrait.jpg, which has higher quality. This file is also unused. Wow (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, other variants available, not in use. --Ellywa (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture taken in a private context (research), might seem unappropiate as animals seem to be posed as for exhibition. The file has no use by now on WM projects. Also there exist more quality pictures of the species. --Lascorz (Talk) 08:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep 15-year-old file used on Wikidata. Stupid request. KEPT. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.250.77 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Neutral High resolution and excellent side profile of the big turtle, but unprofessional setting. --Wow (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, the file exists too long for a deletion per COM:COURTESY. --Ellywa (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Badiklatkejaksaan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official photos, unlikely to be own work as claimed
- File:Setia Untung Arimuladi Kejaksaan.jpg
- File:Setia Untung Arimuladi ok.jpg
- File:Setia Untung Arimuladi.jpg
- File:Kaban 40x60cm (1).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Official Indonesian photos are PD, aren't they? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-IDGov}} applies. —holly {chat} 16:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
_%C3%9A%C5%A0w234-.png){kind=link}
_%C3%9A%C5%A0w234-.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's just the face of a Minecraft skin, has no useful value. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
_ÚŠw234-.png){kind=link}
- Comment It's being used by the creator at cs:Wikipedista:Gelanidlo. --Wow (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 17:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
_ÚŠw234-.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 133.159.123.149 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. I allow discussion. Taivo (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: While this probably is OK per COM:TOO Japan, it's unused and thus out of scope. —holly {chat} 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Ice sculpture is a non-permanent display per VP discussion, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the nominator that COM:FOP Canada doesn't extend to photos of ice sculptures, which are by impermanent by nature. Permission is needed from the sculptor. -M.nelson (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also, ice sculpture exhibits are always temporary installations, usually during a winter festival. -M.nelson (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I read the VP discussion linked by the proposer and I am not convinced that a consensus was reached. I believe that if the 3D object is in "permanent" display in the public space for all its existence, then it would fall under FOP. Amqui (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The work will be permanently placed throughout the useful life of the sculpture, that is, it is a work permanently located in a public place --Wilfredor (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment However, it is not permanently situated in a public place. Most likely these ice sculptures will be placed in a fridge, and I don't think a fridge is a public place, and if you disagree with the VP discussion, you should start another discussion rather than voicing out here. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- These sculptures are made in the same public space where they are placed, you don't need a refrigerator in Quebec during the winter to keep those sculptures. I honestly do not understand your intention with the large number of images that you are sending to be deleted. --Wilfredor (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Ice sculptures do not exist after public display, so display is permanent as long as the sculptures exist. Yann (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question The case of FOP for works that are transient in nature, such as ice sculptures, seems to be some kind of pet issue in the legal commentary literature, and is judged differently even in countries that have FOP. The interpretation most often encountered in Swiss legal commentaries, for example, is that works that are in a public location for the natural duration of their existence (such as ice sculptures!) can actually be depicted under FOP, they are considered "permanent", and this is stated in COM:FOP Switzerland, too, with good sources. But for Canada, we learn nothing from COM:FOP Canada of how Canadian legal scholarship or courts have treated this specific issue. COM:FOP Canada says nothing about whether in Canada, works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, are considered "permanent". So, a well-founded decision in this deletion request is only possible after this has been clarified. Currently, we have proof neither for the nominator's assumption nor for the belief that it falls under FOP in Canada. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per the existing language at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary. If we want to change the way we deal with works with a natural expiration date, it would be better to do it at the policy level, but for now we should stick to the consensual definition of "permanent". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts The entire section ‘Nuances in the panorama freedom’ is based on German law and therefore irrelevant here (we are happy to ignore it for temporary displays in China, where permanence is not required). Brianjd (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Info other related files have been deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/12/17#File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown 004.jpg and the succeeding transcluded requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- A ping to Krd who deleted these files. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- If this file is kept, I think the deleted ones should be undeleted for consistency. But as said above, I think we need some Canadian sources for a decision. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Wilfredor rationale Platonides (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Taking the logic of the nominator to its end, there cannot be any permanent sculpture displays as any sculpture can be (theoretically) destroyed in the future. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Yann. As long as the sculpture remains for the the natural lifetime of the ice in the natural weather conditions (i.e. until the first thaw), any photo of it in Canada complies with COM:FOP Canada and should be kept. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- These are "keep" arguments out of thin air. As said before, COM:FOP Canada doesn't talk about at all about the question whether such works are considered "permanent" in Canada. In Switzerland, as also said before, it would be no problem, as COM:FOP Switzerland covers this with good legal literature sources. I would love to keep this very good image (and consequently restore the deleted ones mentioned above), but this discussion shouldn't be about how we think Canadian law should be interpreted, but based on actual Canadian legal literature clarifying the issue - which surely must exist, but I don't have access to. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: The pictured sculpture is "a sculpture ... that is permanently situated in a public place" per COM:FOP Canada and under Section 32.2 (1)(b)(ii) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: But the question is what "permanently" means. It may seem common sense to assume that a work that is exhibited in a public place for the natural duration of its existence is considered "permanently situated" there, but on the other hand, the short lifetime of the work (similar to Christo's wrappings, where a copyright was confirmed by courts) could also lead to a view that this is not the case. At least fellow admin Krd who deleted such Canadian photographs (see the link provided by JWilz12345) seems to be convinced by the nominator's argument. So, I would prefer some quotes from Canadian legal literature to confirm that the issue is treated in Canada like, for example, in Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. and Gestumblindi: My common sense is the opposite. To me, ‘permanent’ describes something more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which underwent extensive work to prevent its natural destruction. It certainly doesn’t cover ice sculptures, which are destroyed by a predictable process, with predictable timing, with the sculptors/owners intending to allow that process to proceed unhindered. Only in the context of FOP, and then perhaps only in some jurisdictions, could such things be considered ‘permanent’. Brianjd (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: But the question is what "permanently" means. It may seem common sense to assume that a work that is exhibited in a public place for the natural duration of its existence is considered "permanently situated" there, but on the other hand, the short lifetime of the work (similar to Christo's wrappings, where a copyright was confirmed by courts) could also lead to a view that this is not the case. At least fellow admin Krd who deleted such Canadian photographs (see the link provided by JWilz12345) seems to be convinced by the nominator's argument. So, I would prefer some quotes from Canadian legal literature to confirm that the issue is treated in Canada like, for example, in Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: The pictured sculpture is "a sculpture ... that is permanently situated in a public place" per COM:FOP Canada and under Section 32.2 (1)(b)(ii) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- These are "keep" arguments out of thin air. As said before, COM:FOP Canada doesn't talk about at all about the question whether such works are considered "permanent" in Canada. In Switzerland, as also said before, it would be no problem, as COM:FOP Switzerland covers this with good legal literature sources. I would love to keep this very good image (and consequently restore the deleted ones mentioned above), but this discussion shouldn't be about how we think Canadian law should be interpreted, but based on actual Canadian legal literature clarifying the issue - which surely must exist, but I don't have access to. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The VPC discussion, and the COM:FOP policy, was that ice sculptures counted as "permanent" since they were going to be public for their natural lifetime. That was based on a German case, yes, but I don't think we have any other counterexample cases from Canada. Failing that, I would use the same logic. It's possible that other countries may rule differently, but I don't think we should delete because of that possibility. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment better still, have someone from Canada or North America to contact Canada's intellectual property office for clarification (just like what Teetrition did to contact Taiwanese IPO to clarify Taiwanese FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per VP discussion and Yann. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If this file doesn’t gets deleted, then these are going to have to be restored, I suppose:
File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown 004.jpg
File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown 5.jpg
File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown 2.jpg
File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown 3.jpg.
RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) - Delete The FOP policy in Canada does not extend to photos of ice sculptures, which are temporary by nature, and permission from the sculptor is required. Given the precautionary principle, it is safer to delete the file, especially if there are no clear Canadian legal sources to support the claim that it falls under FOP. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per the current wording in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary, this counts as "permanent". Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much info available on the legal definition of permanence; everything I could find referred to the German Reichstag case. Commons has always tended interpret "freedom" broadly (e.g., the application of PD-Art to paintings in the UK's National Portrait Gallery), so I believe it to be consistent with our philosophies that FOP applies here. I will undelete the other images listed here as well. —holly {chat} 17:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Logo. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Brazil has a high threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 17:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Afifa Afrin as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, we don't have any guidelines as to the threshold of originality in Saudi Arabia. —holly {chat} 17:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. It seems that COA og Morocco are believed to be PD per File:Coat of arms of Morocco.svg. MGA73 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: On COM:Marocco no information is listed about Coat of arms. In general, anonymous works older then 70 years are in PD. This might be the case with this image, however information of the age of the design is missing. Therefore the image must be deleted per COM:PRP. Can be undeleted if somebody found a source of information about the history of this COA. --Ellywa (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as 'Logo. Anonymous works are protected as "Publish + 25 years" so if from 1957 it is now PD. MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Libya and per remark of MGA73. Uploader states the logo is from 1951, and this appears highly likely. --Ellywa (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. en:Ministry of Defense (Kuwait) was formed 60 years ago and copyright expires after 50 years. So if this is the original logo it is PD. MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no source or information to decide on the age of this logo. it has therefore been deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. en:Ministry of Finance (Kuwait) was formed 60 years ago and copyright expire after 50 year. So logo is PD if it is the original. Also it is almost the same as File:Emblem of Kuwait.svg. MGA73 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, no source or information to decide on the age of this logo. it has therefore been deleted per COM:PRP. It looks rather modern imho. --Ellywa (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as 'Logo. Seems to be a copyvio and if so the File:Flag of Gilgit-Baltistan.svg and File:Gilgit Baltistan Government Logo.svg is also a problem. But it looks like older logos of Pakistan. MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I propose to move File:Flag of Gilgit-Baltistan.svg to English Wikipedia and delete this file and File:Gilgit Baltistan Government Logo.svg. Hosmich (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the deletion. This is the flag of Gilgit-Baltistan, its use on the page of Gilgit Baltistan and the flags of pakistan page are clearly fair use, as educational.XavierGreen (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @XavierGreen: "Fair use" files are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, see COMMONS:Fair use. For use in en-Wiki it should therefore be moved to en-Wiki with a proper fair use clause. --TU-nor (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Given that the emblem has a shield, it is a coat of arms. Coats of arms are always replaceable, so as long as someone vectorized a different rendition, we do not have to delete this file. 98.213.225.105 21:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no fair use is allowed on Commons. No information is available about the age of these designs. So the logo as well als the flags and the other logo have to be deleted. Can be temporary restored to transfer to Wikipedia's where fair use is allowed. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
