Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/02/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
not super well lit, kind of blurry Phoenix374 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
And "teen"! Pedofilia... — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.125.160.62 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- it’s a picture of myself so not exactly pedophilia Phoenix374 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Autopedophilia. 191.125.160.62 01:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- ok but why don’t we just delete it and get it over with Phoenix374 (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Autopedophilia. 191.125.160.62 01:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
still from a copyrighted music video discospinster (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Vorrei inserire questo file in Photo Challenge Marti Monel (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment In use at Commons:Photo challenge. --Rosenzweig τ 11:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Bad graphics no shrek 212.37.51.250 11:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
hjjhjjjhj 5.200.187.116 12:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 13:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
File:Degrees_of_kinship.jpg Lordsvazucci (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused file Sedruqk (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Unused file Sedruqk (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Question What's it a duplicate of? Unused is not a deletion reason, and it was kept yesterday. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo without EXIF data, unlikely uploader owned. Pierre cb (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader is indefinitely blocked, I'll delete all his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
unfortuately I did a mistake by creating this image: instead of "Customer Success Management" there should be "Customer Success" in the white box Academicknowledge4you (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
misunderstanding Oppufc (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
misunderstanding Oppufc (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
misunderstanding Oppufc (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
misunderstanding Oppufc (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
It is not a significant image of Haglud's deformity. I uploaded this image. Jmarchn (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Collage of uncredited images, including one from https://ktovmedicine.ru/2013/6/nyaganskaya-okruzhnaya-bolnica-cepochka-iz-dostupnosti-kachestva-sozidaniya-i-miloserdiya.html and one from https://travelask.ru/questions/20390-kak-dobratsya-iz-tyumeni-v-nyagan (both higher res off-site and pre-dating this upload by years) Belbury (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyright violation. --Polarlys (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope: computer game screenshot. Also suspected copyvio Enyavar (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I uploaded this to the wrong website, I was meaning to upload it to the Enderal wiki page to use it as a reference for an in-game quest, but for some reason the redirect took me here. This can be deleted as it is not even usable where I planned to use it. Sweets438 (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader agrees with deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Cambie el cielo Nico277272 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Needs to be deleted, the user is part of education program and don't know about commons policies.
- Sandra Hanbo (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Herbythyme. --Rosenzweig τ 21:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
No copyright info Dronebogus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio. I am also deleting File:Opppppp.png, which is the full, uncropped version of this one. --Rosenzweig τ 13:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright holder is copido, not uploader, see EXIF shizhao (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Author is TONGS.KIN, not uploader, see EXIF shizhao (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
No information about the original photograph that has been taken until 1985. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The uploader cannot be an author of this photograph that has been taken in 1975. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot, no proves of a free license. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot taken from somebody's vacation video in Cuba. Possible educational use seems minimal. Abzeronow (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
License laundering - YouTube video is merely showing a pre-existing photograph--numerous places on internet before 26 May 2021 YouTube video (e.g., here and here 25 May 2021) Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Thomas Hude) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Thomas Hude) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Helge Bauer) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Helge Bauer) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Philipp Simonis) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- The picture is from the Austrian parliament, which grants its pictures to be used on Wikipedia etc.
- Copyright: Parlamentsdirektion/PHOTO SIMONIS
- Terms of use for photographs
- The Austrian Parliament features on its website current and historical photographs of parliamentary affairs. It has acquired from the photographers all rights of use of copyrighted photographs bearing the inscription "Copyright Parliamentary Administration (Parlamentsdirektion)/name of photographer".
- Only photographs made available with the designation "Copyright Parliamentary Administration/name of photographer" can be downloaded free of charge for purposes of political reporting, on condition that the copyright holder is named, and the photograph is used for
- publication in the press
- publication in printed media
- publication by film or television or
- online or multimedia publication
- This also applies for private non-commercial use as well as for non-commercial purposes in the context of political education. Any commercial use exceeding the limits stipulated above, and in particular the use for advertising, requires payment. For further information please contact Department 4.1 - Press Office & Crossmedia.
- Contact: photo@parlament.gv.at, +43 1 401 10-2810, +43 676 8900 2810
- Any form of processing, remodelling or manipulation – other than colour correction, downsizing or the presentation of cutouts - of the digital photographs made available on the website of the Austrian Parliament, as well as the presentation of photographs downloaded from the Parliament's website in a misleading or distorted context is prohibited. The requirements of the Austrian copyright Act must be complied with.
- Please note that the actuality of the photograph description corresponds to the time the photograph was taken. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The permission by the parliament is not sufficiently free enough for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Philipp Simonis) M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- The picture is from the Austrian parliament, which grants its pictures to be used on Wikipedia etc.
- Copyright: Parlamentsdirektion/PHOTO SIMONIS
- Terms of use for photographs
- The Austrian Parliament features on its website current and historical photographs of parliamentary affairs. It has acquired from the photographers all rights of use of copyrighted photographs bearing the inscription "Copyright Parliamentary Administration (Parlamentsdirektion)/name of photographer".
- Only photographs made available with the designation "Copyright Parliamentary Administration/name of photographer" can be downloaded free of charge for purposes of political reporting, on condition that the copyright holder is named, and the photograph is used for
- publication in the press
- publication in printed media
- publication by film or television or
- online or multimedia publication
- This also applies for private non-commercial use as well as for non-commercial purposes in the context of political education. Any commercial use exceeding the limits stipulated above, and in particular the use for advertising, requires payment. For further information please contact Department 4.1 - Press Office & Crossmedia.
- Contact: photo@parlament.gv.at, +43 1 401 10-2810, +43 676 8900 2810
- Any form of processing, remodelling or manipulation – other than colour correction, downsizing or the presentation of cutouts - of the digital photographs made available on the website of the Austrian Parliament, as well as the presentation of photographs downloaded from the Parliament's website in a misleading or distorted context is prohibited. The requirements of the Austrian copyright Act must be complied with.
- Please note that the actuality of the photograph description corresponds to the time the photograph was taken. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The permission by the parliament is not sufficiently free enough for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Not an own work. 191.125.160.62 00:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
low-quality image, likely to be trolling RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete "Teenager" and "puberty" indicated that the subject is likely to be underage. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)- Speedy delete per A1Cafel --Lukas Beck (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tyler.raffety (talk · contribs)
[edit]Tennessee's government doesn't automatically release their images into the public domain like the federal government and some other states. No indication of CC-BY-SA license
- File:Jeff Yarbro senator.png
- File:Kerry Roberts senator.jpg
- File:Ken Yager senator.jpg
- File:Adam Lowe senator.png
- File:London Lamar senator.png
- File:Paul Rose senator.png
- File:Sara kyle senator.png
- File:Joey Hensley senator.png
- File:Johnson jack senator.png
- File:Page walley senator.png
- File:Ed Jackson senator.png
- File:Bill Powers senator.png
- File:Heidi Campbell senator.png
- File:Ferrell Haile senator.png
- File:Mark Pody senator.png
- File:Janice Bowling senator.jpg
- File:Paul Bailey senator.jpg
- File:Dawn White senator.jpg
- File:Bo watson senator.png
- File:Todd Gardenhire senator.png
- File:Senator Frank Niceley.png
- File:Senator Steve Southerland.png
- File:Senator Richard briggs.jpg
- File:Jon Lundberg senator.jpg
- File:Senator Art Swann.jpg
Twotwofourtysix (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: The EXIF data for File:Jeff Yarbro senator.png and File:Ed Jackson senator.png state "(C) 2008 State of Tennessee", while the EXIF data for File:Kerry Roberts senator.jpg, File:Ferrell Haile senator.png, File:Janice Bowling senator.jpg, File:Dawn White senator.jpg, File:Bo watson senator.png, File:Senator Frank Niceley.png, File:Senator Steve Southerland.png, File:Senator Richard briggs.jpg and File:Senator Art Swann.jpg list someone named Jed DeKalb as the photographer and State of Tennesee as the copyrighit holder. The EXIF data for the remaining files is just generic scanner data. Some of the photos further attribute John DeKalb as the "Chief State Photographer". Even if DeKalb took these as part of their official duties and they're a en:work for hire, there's no indication anywhere that they've been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} like the uploader is claiming. So, these can't really be kept per COM:NETCOPYVIO without the COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder.It's possible the uploader just mistakenly thought being freely available online somehow meant free from copyright protection, but that's not the case at all. However, based on the uploader's user talk page, this doesn't appear to be the first time a mistake like this has been made. So, perhaps the admin who closes this discussion should take a look at this user's upload history and decide whether they've been sufficiently warned enough already about uploading files with questionable licensing. Either the uploader is not understanding why some of their uploads have been deleted or they just don't care. They've have made zero talk page posts since they started editing which means they don't seem to be inclined to even ask questions or find out why some of their uploads are deleted. At some point soon, they probably need to be told "enough is enough" and conituing to upload questionable files will probably lead to a block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Author Requested J.Stalin S Talk 06:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete mediocre dick pic Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution, blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Pioneer Woman Mural by Daniel Pickens in Pickens Museum at City Central in Ponca City.jpg
[edit]No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; COM:DW of living artist. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Presumably a copyrighted picture Syced (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this is copyright, because it's a picture of a famous artist and all the media and newspapers use it Zamand Karim (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how copyrights work. Photos that newspapers use are very commonly copyrighted. In any case, you are not the original author and copyright holder, and you did not take the original photo in 2023 as you claimed. Please be accurate and honest. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright promotional image - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3032782/?ref_=tt_cl_i_2 Evaders99 (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anirudhranga.r1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]One is found on FB as a background in 2022 - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=591473309458349&set=pb.100057870557602.-2207520000. = the other is taken from FB per MD. Needs OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination . --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
found elsewhere, not own work [1] RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot of a website which is clearly protected by copyright; no evidence that the user who uploaded is is in any relation to that website. I fear we must delete this picture, don’t we? Aristeas (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. This work focuses on the Louvre Pyramid, which is copyrighted in France until 2090. No point transwiki-ing this, as better versions exist. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hier wird ein altes Logo des SV Meppen 1912 e.V. abgebildet 91.249.135.26 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an old club logo of SV Meppen 1912 e.V. Florian Egbers (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is an old club logo of SV Meppen 1912. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
wrong logo Przelijpdahl (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, questionable license claim. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
because i am selling the licence to the persian magazine to use it. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion as the license can not be revoked. --Jarekt (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
i did a cosmetic surgery and i don't want to share my previous look with people. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- You uploaded it. Removing historical images would be rewriting history. Heavy Water (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not want to publish this photo anymore. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- You want to sell it? 186.173.129.198 07:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per my rationale at this request. Contributers2020Talk to me here! 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In fact, the request should come from Zohrevandi via VRT if it is a violation of personality rights. But the photo was taken in a public space. Ruthven (msg) 13:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Own work claim is not valid. OTRS Is needed. 181.43.5.243 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: procedural close, 1 of 2 open requests for this image, per previous keeps. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Subject: Formal Request for Removal of Personal Photo from Wikimedia Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Milad Zohrevandi, and I am writing to you regarding a matter of privacy and personal representation on Wikimedia. It has come to my attention that there is a photo of me hosted on Wikimedia which I find unacceptable and violative of my privacy. The photo in question does not accurately represent my current appearance due to personal reasons. I have undergone cosmetic surgeries that have significantly altered my facial features, rendering the photo obsolete and misleading. As such, I kindly request the immediate removal of this photo from Wikimedia. I understand the importance of maintaining accurate and respectful representations of individuals on public platforms such as Wikimedia. However, in this instance, the continued presence of this outdated photo undermines my right to privacy and misrepresents my current physical appearance. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request that the photo be removed from Wikimedia as soon as possible. If any further information or verification is required to process this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at milad.zohrevandi@yahoo.com. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Milad Zohrevandi Dreamlandtv (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Dear Dreamlandtv, that your face has been changed is not a reason for deletion. You are advised to write to the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation to request deletion of the photo from Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Copypasted from this article, not public domain. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio (uses obviously copyrighted models of barnacle, manhack and gunship) Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:DW on Flickr. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This foto contains faces and should be removed 144.178.245.134 15:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request in history. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This clearly is not under creative commons as granted by the original author, instead attributed to an anonymous pinterest account. Blatant theft. Here is the same photo held by Alamy: https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-digital-underground-with-tupac-shakur-photographed-in-1992-higher-167069505.html Backlitt (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Spam blah blah Dronebogus (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background, incorrect file name & colored atom labels. We have File:4-Hydroxy-2-butanone-2D-structure.svg as high-quality vector replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Die Autorin möchte die Veröffentlichung dieses Bildes nicht, schon gar nicht die Preisgabe der GPS-Standort-Daten ihres privaten Umfelds Dondin86 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio images
[edit]- File:Mayfung Festival.jpg
- File:Makrani Child.jpg
- File:Pamiri man in Gojal.jpg
- File:Punjabi man.jpg
- File:Uyghur women.jpg
Likely copyvio. Out of the 15 or so images uploaded by the user the majority were uploaded under similar false "own work" tags having been pilfered from across the web and have now been deleted. These remain whose sources I haven't been able to locate but are in all probability copyvio, edited to obfuscate that very fact. Considering the track record of uploads here, its better to do away with these. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep A good reason for being a copy is not provided. Parsa 2au (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all files were already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 18:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, most of the images uploaded by the user have been deleted for being pilfered from across the web while at the same time maliciously claiming ownership. Though I haven't been able to locate the source for this one (likely due to it being edited to hide that fact), the same is very likely to be the case here. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: aleady deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Credited to Christophe Majani - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Source video does not have a CC-BY-SA tag. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Image appears to be from video, not actual image. Combined with no metadata and history of this image, this is questionable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note that IP editor removed the deletion template and added a permission template here . Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Banners are non-permanent display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Pexels images published after July 2018 cannot be hosted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Pexels images published after July 2018 cannot be hosted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Pexels images published after July 2018 cannot be hosted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The building was completed in 2016 by Massimiliano Fuksas (1944–) and Doriana Mandrelli (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The building was completed in 2016 by Massimiliano Fuksas (1944–) and Doriana Mandrelli (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Precautionary principle. All the uploaders other photo-uploads were copyvios. I can't find ths one online, but there is no EXIF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- If it helps, I can see a text watermark on the photo around the lioness's back. I can't read what the text says exactly, except that the second half of it is almost certainly "photos". Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah nevermind, I figured it out from a second watermark by the back leg at the right of the image: it's "depositphotos". Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- On a related note, it appears the same uploader has re-uploaded File:Leopón.jpg, despite it being deleted before for being a copyvio. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Kazakhstan. The palace is not de minimis because if the palace was removed than there will be only a (potentially useless) flowerland left A1Cafel (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Useless personal photo Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, lack of metadata and low resolution HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Style
[edit]Useless personal photos and spam
- File:Deva doremiva style.jpg
- File:Francisco Burgos Headshot 3023.jpg
- File:Hair style photo.jpg
- File:Hridoykabbo28.png
- File:Jaisalmeri fashion.jpg
- File:Mr Nehal Islam.jpg
- File:Nehal attitude style.jpg
- File:Nehal Islam & Cousin.jpg
- File:Nehal Islam - of dog.jpg
- File:Nehal Islam - police car.jpg
- File:Nehal Islam attitude fashion style.jpg
- File:Nehal Islam attitude fashion.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Style
[edit]Out of scope
Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep two first photos, because they are currently used. Delete the last. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: First two photos in use (=in scope), kept; Last out of scope (unused personal photo), deleted. --Wdwd (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stylish
[edit]Spam and personal garbage
- File:Abu Yousuf.jpg
- File:Actor TJ Jackson 3.jpg
- File:Jeffery Lever.jpg
- File:Nehal islam attitude.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stylish
[edit]Spam and personal garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Amateur porn, COM:VAGINA Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bruno K. Wiese
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany stamps of the country are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the stamps designer. In this case the designer, Bruno K. Wiese, died in 2011. So images of these stamps are copyrighted until at least 2,081.
- File:DBP - Nobelpreisträger - 50,50,50 Pfennig - 1975.jpg
- File:DBP - Nobelpreisträger, Gustav Stresemann - 50 Pfennig - 1975.jpg
- File:DBP 1974 804 Europa Skuplturen.jpg
- File:DBP 1974 805 Europa Skuplturen.jpg
- File:DBP 1975 840 Europa Gemälde.jpg
- File:DBP 1975 841 Europa Gemälde.jpg
- File:DBP 1976 890 Europa Kunsthandwerk.jpg
- File:DBP 1977 928 Carl Friedrich Gauß.jpg
- File:DBP 1980 1057 Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach.jpg
- File:DBP 1981 1099 Tilman Riemenschneider.jpg
- File:DBP 1981 1104 Wilhelm Raabe.jpg
- File:DBP 1982 1161 Weihnachten.jpg
- File:DBP 1984 1212 Norbert von Xanten.jpg
- File:DBP 1985 1266 Bundeswehr.jpg
- File:DBP 1986 1272 Oskar Kokoschka.jpg
- File:DBP 1986 1273 Giotto Mission Halleyscher Komet.jpg
- File:DBP 1987 1309 Volkszählung.jpg
- File:DBP 1987 1321 Deutscher Pavillon Barcelona Mies van der Rohe.jpg
- File:DBP 1987 1322 Köhlbrandbrücke Hamburg.jpg
- File:DBP 1988 1373 Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst.jpg
- File:DBP 1989 1416 Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament.jpg
- File:DBP 1989 1423 Franz Xaver Gabelsberger.jpg
- File:DBP 1994 1724 Europäisches Parlament.jpg
- File:Europa 1987 BRD 02.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 1996 Briefmarke BGB.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (Berlin) 1982, MiNr 688.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (BRD) 1969, MiNr 582.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- MiNr 840: This stamp shows a 1925 painting by Oskar Schlemmer, who died in 1943. The painting is in the public domain. The words around the painting are ineligible for copyright. Keep.
- MiNr 841: This stamp shows a 1932 painting by Oskar Schlemmer. It is in the public domain in Germany. The words around the painting are ineligible for copyright.
- MiNr 1057: This stamp shows a 1900 photograph by Josef Székely, who died in 1901. The photograph is in the public domain. The words around the painting are ineligible for copyright. Keep.
- MiNr 688 and 1161: These stamps show 14th-century paintings. The paintings are in the public domailn. The words around the painting are ineligible for copyright. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
-
MiNr 840 -
1925 painting -
MiNr 841
-
1932 painting -
MiNr 1057 -
1900 photograph -
MiNr 688 -
MiNr 1161 -
14th-century paintings
_1982,_MiNr_688.jpg)
- MiNr. 928: This is a simple mathematical graph, probably not eligible for copyright. Keep.
- MiNr. 1423: The picture and the shorthand writing are from the 19th century and out of copyright. I am not sure whether Wiese's design elements are eligible for copyright. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
-
MiNr 928 -
MiNr 1423
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![30 File:กระแต อาร์สยาม" ฟิตหุ่นแซ่บมาก 26-05-64 Thairath Online.png](#File:กระแต_อาร์สยาม"_ฟิตหุ่นแซ่บมาก_26-05-64_Thairath_Online.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_Musical_Theatre.jpg){kind=link}
_blote_borsten_()_en_40+_Edammer_kaas,_Bestanddeelnr_930-7858.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_51907077234.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_Musical_Theatre.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped)_Musical_Theatre.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped)_Musical_Theatre.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_Musical_Theatre.jpg){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_582.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: most of them, per nomination; kept those that showed paintings or photographs from before 1928, also kept the Gauß stamp because of its simple design. The one showing the 1932 painting can be restored in 2028 when that painting will be in the PD in the USA as well. Most of the rest can be restored in 2082, except for a few from 1987 and 1988 which can be restored in 2083 and 2084 respectively. The ones from 1989 and later are not affected by the URAA, but are 70 years pma in the USA as well. --Rosenzweig τ 23:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The licenses on this image are completely bunk. For one, the stamps was created after 1966. We also know who created it, R. Bojanic, and they probably died in 2017. Also, stamps aren't laws or anything else that would qualify them for being PD under the laws of Serbia and Montenegro. Although even if that wasn't the case, this still clearly isn't PD in Yugoslavia. The same goes for the following images:
- File:Zsuzsa Polgár 2001 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Nona Gaprindashvili 2001 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Xie Jun 2001 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Stamps of Yugoslavia Chess 2001.jpg
- File:Europa 1986 Yugoslavia 01.jpg
- File:Europa 1986 Yugoslavia 02.jpg
- File:Europa 1986 Yugoslavia Series.jpg
- File:Europa 1986 Yugoslavia Series.jpg
- File:Europa 1991 Yugoslavia 01.jpg
- File:Europa 1991 Yugoslavia 02.jpg
- File:Europa 1991 Yugoslavia series.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. When Yugoslavia broke up in the 1990s, Serbia took over all issues related to stamps and their copyright, except for stamps that were clearly marked as belonging to other breakaway republics (Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia). Radomir Bojanić worked for the postal service of Yugoslavia and then Serbia [2], and his 2001 stamps mentioned above were printed in Serbia, as Yugoslavia did not exist anymore. Thus {{PD-SerbiaGov}} applies, where stamps fall under "2. Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions". Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- That keep rational has never held water. No one considers stamps to be covered by any kind of "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions" clause. Except in extremely rare cases where the government of said country has explicitly said that's the case, which the last time I checked Serbia hasn't. In the meantime whatever the details with Yugoslavia are, the stamps are still supposedly being licensed under PD-Yugoslavia, which clearly isn't valid. Be my guest and remove the PD-Yugoslavia template from the images if you want, but until then you can't both claim that the stamps are copyright free because of PD-Yugoslavia by adding the template to them and then claim after the fact when someone takes issue with their copyright status that the template should be ignored because Yugoslavia didn't exist at the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. This is basically the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Famous personalities 1999 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg, so my rationale will be the same. I can't find anything about Yugoslavian stamps in our guidelines. COM:Stamps has nothing on Yugoslavia or Serbia, COM:Yugoslavia has nothing on stamps, COM:Serbia neither, nor any of the pages of the other successor states. I noticed that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Serbia#Templates claims that both {{PD-SerbiaGov}} and the similarly worded {{PD-SCGGov}} (for Serbia and Montenegro) can be used for “stamps, money etc.”, but without naming any details. The wording of PD-SerbiaGov (“Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions”) and PD-SCGGov (“Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function”) is rather vague and open to interpretation. That kind of interpretation is the job of courts and legal literature, but I don't see anything here pointing in the direction that courts or legal commentaries consider stamps from Yugoslavia to be official works or in the public domain. In fact, per Template talk:PD-SerbiaGov, the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia apparently replied to a query by e-mail that the category official materials covers only “official acts, drawings and blueprints of building and cadaster agencies, diplomas, certificates, official reports of government agencies, statistical reports, drafts of Laws and other documents. They also explicitly state in their answer that we cannot include any photo from government's web sites in the category of official materials, nor anything else from government's web sites not included in the aforementioned categories.” So probably neither stamps nor money are official materials in Serbia, and presumably they weren't in Serbia and Montenegro or Yugoslavia either. In the absence of any evidence that stamps are official materials, I'll take the default position and assume that they are not official materials or in the PD. The author of these stamps is named as R. Bojanić, that is probably the Serbian artist Radomir Bojanić. I couldn't find anything about his death, and since he was apparently born in 1951, he could be alive. I'll go with Serbian copyright law (not that it would make much difference I think), so the files can be restored 70 years after Radomir Bojanić's death. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a privacy issue. This is my private home. Please remove. 174.240.176.171 00:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Was there any identification that it’s your house? It’s also in use. By the way, I bet anyone can see your house on Google Maps, so what’s the matter? RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be a historically significant building in a town with not very many, in a photo taken from a public road. —innotata 03:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Info: ticket:2023022610006087. Bencemac (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Affiche van Beatrix met (grote) blote borsten () en 40+ Edammer kaas, Bestanddeelnr 930-7858.jpg
[edit]_blote_borsten_()_en_40%2B_Edammer_kaas,_Bestanddeelnr_930-7858.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_blote_borsten_()_en_40%2B_Edammer_kaas,_Bestanddeelnr_930-7858.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. This poster is from 1980, so the maker cannot be dead for at least 70 years. It was not meant to be there permanent, so no FOP. I do not see a VRT ticket. The National Archive only pays attention on copyrights of photos, not on copyrights of art works. (So this might be copyright white washing.) JopkeB (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- In the mean time I learned that this was certainly not ill-intentioned, but accidentally; this photo falls within the margin of error (less than 1%) that lawyers of the National Archive estimated on forehand that would get a wrong licence. It is up to us to pick them out ... --JopkeB (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Juliana ontvangt op Paleis-Soestdijk 1e exemplaar van ee herdenkingsinhuldiging, Bestanddeelnr 930-7664.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation. These are stamps of the Netherlands from 1980, so they are not 70 years old yet and still protected by copyright rules of the Netherlands. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Stamps for copyright rules. JopkeB (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is a commemorative tile of the Netherlands, not meant for constantly exposure in a public space, so no FOP. It dates from 1980, so the designer cannot be dead for at least 70 year, nor can the photographer be. I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Museum Rotterdam has published this photo under the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I don't think it's our task to investigate whether that was done rightfully or not. That would open a can of wurms. Kleon3 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think Commons has a responsibility to make sure that every file here can be reused without having to worry about the licence. And I agree that we can not investigate every file. But if I see a photo of an artwork that is not yet in the public domain, I report it. Because I know that Dutch museums and archives have bulks of photographs that they publish online (and they may because in the Netherlands the copyright rules for them are more flexible than for Commons and ordinary people) and they might not pay attention to the exceptions, like this one. I agree with you that such a photo should not be published with a licence cc-by-sa-3.0, but I think this one has slipped in between. I think they usually only look at the copyrights of the photographer and not of the artist. JopkeB (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche van Beatrix met (grote) blote borsten () en 40+ Edammer kaas, Bestanddeelnr 930-7858.jpg. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
_blote_borsten_()_en_40%2B_Edammer_kaas,_Bestanddeelnr_930-7858.jpg){kind=link}
Blurry, not in use, duplicate of SVG version at File:Relatives Chart.svg. 89.144.195.185 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Relatives Chart EN.jpg Lordsvazucci (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Túrelio, redirected to duplicate File:Relative Table.png. GFJ (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect. Sedruqk (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Early 20th Century photograph from Sweden. Subject was born in 1849 and died in 1922. I'd guess this was taken closer to 1910 or 1920 than 1900. This appears to be the work of a professional photographer and it is possible the photographer lived past 1952. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Sweden, "The photograph was published anonymously before 1 January 1953". I added the PD-Sweden license. --RAN (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the file name and the category names. I guess we can go with that rationale. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
not applicable Симпатизер (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- What is not applicable? 191.125.160.62 01:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: This seems to be a picture of table tennis player Tatjana Ječmenica XxakixX (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- wrong photo was uploaded. supposed to be a photo of a sports person in an action. Симпатизер (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of "wrong photo". --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, used for selfpromo. The uploader is a sockpuppet created only for promotion (maybe himself). Taichi (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Brian Cheater doesn't deserve to be here, and not an own work anyway. 191.125.160.62 07:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Brian Chater has played a very signficcant role in the development of the Canadian music industry, 70.51.215.224 19:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Info: Detailed article page @ https://en.everybodywiki.com/Brian_Chater (saved en:Draft:Brian Chater) where our photograph is in use. --Achim55 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep unless there's more than an assertion that this wasn't own work. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not own work: published online already in 2015. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Exact same film as File:The Sea Beast (1926).webm, with less concise title and with a copyrighted soundtrack (which would need to be removed even if this were to be kept). There is no benefit to keeping this duplicate item here. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The uploader cannot be an author of this photograph that has been taken in 1943. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I changed to author=anonymous but the date puts it outside PD-Russia. --RAN (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination ("author=anonymous" just an assumption). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This photo is tagged as “Own work”. But according to TinEye this photo appears (in identical form) on two websites, dating back some years; and there is no evidence that the uploader is the creator. So I fear we must delete this photo – except the uploader can provide additional evidence that this is their own work. Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate image Sedruqk (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate of File:Tabela de parentescos.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate and unused file. (copy of File:Relative Table.png) Sedruqk (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be a screenshot. --Karim talk to me :)..! 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Missing metadata. Zweil61 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Request from Uploader per Ticket:2023022710010061. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDITY Dronebogus (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Probable copyvio inexplicably replaced with a useless image of a clock. Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A newcomer 181.43.5.243 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal file of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
googlemaps copvio Enyavar (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Per the first revision of this file, this is a 2005 painting. This is too recent to pass COM:FOP US for paintings made available to the public. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the review of the Wikipedia article that incorporates this image, this photograph was intentionally taken at a greater distance to make it qualify as de minimis. The point of the image in the William Rath article is not to show the work of art itself, but to show that there is a work of art about this historical figure in this particular town. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- De minimis applies when something is a background element, not when it is the central focus of the image. The work of art itself remains the point of the image, even taken from further away. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nom that the image is focusing on the painting and de minimis cannot be applied. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Based on the fact volumes from the 1950's contain clear notices, All post 1928 editions are being tagged, If someone wants to individually check for the lack of notices or renewals feel free, otherwise these should be deleted until teh copyright expires... However, I see no sign of a copyright notice. Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I take it back. Copyright notice is on the bottom of page 2. Unless someone wants to demonstrate non-renewal, Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Based on the fact volumes from the 1950's contain clear notices, All post 1928 editions are being tagged, If someone wants to individually check for the lack of notices or renewals feel free, otherwise these should be deleted until teh copyright expires... I see no sign of a copyright notice. Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I take it back. Copyright notice is in small print on the first illustrated page (probably the original cover). Unless someone wants to demonstrate non-renewal, Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work" but uploaded by Wendy Sharpe's assistant, not Wendy Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Sharpe&diff=1141496935&oldid=1141390834 Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unknown building, possibily in Catalonia. There was an IberiaCar (sic) company that dissapeared, but no mention of Cadí. As the location cannot be stablished and not being a relevant company, this picture is useless. B25es (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question How did you search? Bloomberg: Ibericar Cadi SA: Ibericar Cadi SA retails automobiles. The company's Facebook page. I'm not saying the photo should necessarily be kept, but I just wonder how you searched the term. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: DW, tiny screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It was uploaded by Novacom. There is a Novacom company in Ghana, but doesn't use this logo. It could be promotion, selfpromotion or just an invention. I think it is out of Commons' scope. B25es (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unclear what the logo is for. A google search doesn't help. Hence out of scope. Jonteemil (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSciu8K6j8U2UbiiFTEK6yg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This isn't own work from the user, as you can see on this archived version of the network's website Vini6305 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This isn't own work from the user, as you can see on this archived version of the network's website Vini6305 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
File:الدبلومة التدريبية لحساب البصمة الكربونية Training diploma for calculating the carbon footprint of business.png
[edit]
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Inconvenient photo version ShadZ01 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question What do you mean by "inconvenient"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The actual document photographed is possibly {{PD-KZ-exempt}}, but I'm not familiar enough with Kazakh case law to have full confidence in this. Does anyone have a good understanding of the underlying case law in Kazakhstan regarding this sort of thing?On a different note, this would seem to be in-scope as it has a clear educational purpose for coverage regarding 2022 Kazakh elections, so the original nomination reason makes little sense. The photo could be better if it were higher quality, but the current version does add educational value. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- i wanna reupload this photo because of personal exif data it shows which violates my privacy. I already have same photo with modified data i need. ShadZ01 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see. It's possible to edit the file, though, and then for an admin to delete the earlier version to protect your privacy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- i wanna reupload this photo because of personal exif data it shows which violates my privacy. I already have same photo with modified data i need. ShadZ01 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work" but uploaded by Wendy Sharpe's assistant, not Wendy Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Sharpe&diff=1141496935&oldid=1141390834 Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This image is taken from an outside source or internet or a website. The published author is not the original copyright holder of this image. This image belongs diretly to Harvard University and Harvard Business School. If the uploader is the copyright holder of this image, then the holder should prove it by giving authorised copyright paper and prrof for it, If not, this image should be deleted for copyright violation and rights violation under law. This image should be deleted herewith. Thanks, James 122.171.19.31 22:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator provides no evidence that this is a copyright violation. On its face, it's very plausible that this is an original photo; it doesn't appear to be anything like what the university would take and promulgate (poorly framed, crooked, student names included, etc.). A specific allegation that this is a copyright violation should be accompanied by evidence or at least a plausible argument - this nomination has neither. ElKevbo (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should assume good faith on the part of the uploader. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Like the comments above, I also can't find convincing evidence is this a copyvio (not found online prior to upload to Commons using TinEye). EXIF data consistent with the other uploads. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
If source, date, and author are all "unknown", how do we verify this Creative Commons license? 25stargeneral (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio. This file appears to be a derivative work of a deleted file. Tryvix1509 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: File that this image is derived from was deleted for not having information.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Converting to DR, as we are not bound by enwiki deletion processes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Ikan Kekek: I think by "information", they mean COM:EVID here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see. OK, so "unknown" as the author is the problem, I guess. I have no basis for voting on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Website listed states "©LUIS C. GARZA/COURTESY THE PHOTOGRAPHER"|source=https://www.artnews.com/art-news/artists/luis-c-garza-george-rodriguez-photojournalism-1960s-la-chicano-blowouts-10277/. Claimed PD-US-no notice, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete That looks like notice to me. --RAN (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's a modern copyright notice on a website, which has nothing to do with whether it was published pre-1978 with no notice. (Of course, if no one comes forward with evidence of initial publication sans notice, then it should be deleted.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Those pictured did not consent to having image taken or published. 66.215.20.154 02:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- What evidence can you present? --RAN (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Personality rights}} solves that. Keep RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use. The subject is smiling for the camera. The other woman pictured is not in a compromising position or anything like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not a logo. This is a full photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is part of the Mason County Lumber Heritage Trail per Michigan.org. The trail did not open until 2013 per Ludington. Otherwise, the sculptuor's website said it was made in the 2000s per these two links. In either case, this is too recent to pass COM:FOP US and PD-US-no notice for sculptures. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Heinz Baumüller
[edit]copyvio, contemp. art, no fop.
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 10a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 11a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 12a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 13a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 3a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 4a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 5a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 6a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 8a.jpg
- File:Galerie in der Schmiede Ausstellung Baumueller Heinz 12032014 9a.jpg
- File:Heinz -Baumueller wuerde konjunktiv.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
_-_51907077234.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_51907077234.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is doubtful that the author of this photograph is Pyotr Ivanovich Bartolomey, since he himself is present in the photo. In field conditions, the creation of a group photo portrait of this quality using the self-timer mechanism seems unlikely, most likely the photo was taken by another person (perhaps with a camera owned by Bartholomey). Yellow Horror (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Table_of_Consanguinity.gif Lordsvazucci (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused file Sedruqk (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused file and duplicate. Sedruqk (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused. Sedruqk (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not PD in Singapore, the receipt was released in 1962, meaning that the receipt is still in copyright in Singapore until 2033 and in the US until 2058. Billytanghh (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- This file should be PD-SG-unknownauthor --
- The copyright is based on the pre-printed receipt, not when it was written upon by hand. This single receipt from an old "receipt books" with many pre-printed copies each. The pre-printed year on this printed receipt is "195 "- so, the receipt books were likely printed in 1949, for use in the years 1950 through 1959. This would lower the cost, because a new printing plate would only be needed once every 10 years. This was also a common practice in Europe and the United States for the same reason. -- Ooligan (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by GUENTER STRAUSS) M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Photos were provided by Photographer Guenther Strauss (https://www.fotocommunity.de/fotograf/guenter-strauss/2448152) and given to Wiebke Zeise (aka Wait What) to use and distribute freely. WikiBreakr (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by GUENTER STRAUSS) M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Photos were provided by Photographer Guenther Strauss (https://www.fotocommunity.de/fotograf/guenter-strauss/2448152) and given to Wiebke Zeise (aka Wait What) to use and distribute freely. WikiBreakr (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
number of seats do not match with the congress of Brazil. Fake diagrams, misleading data
Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dreamlandwiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]not notable. out of project scope.
- File:Milad zohrevandi - میلاد زهره وندی - تلویزیون دریم لند - Dreamland Tv.jpg
- File:Milad zohrevandi - میلاد زهره وندی - تلویزیون دریم لند.jpg
- File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI - STUDIO1- میلاد زهره وندی.jpg
- File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI - TROPHY - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg
- File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI IN MARTINI AWARDS - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg
- File:Milad zohrevandi - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg
- File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg
Hanooz 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Quick web search suggests Milad Zohrevandi is adequately notable. Previous attempts to revoke license make me suspicious of repeated deletion request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI - TROPHY - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg deleted as COM:DW of modern trophy -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any reason for the significance or notability of the subject. Hanooz 21:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not even one source about this person other than personal website and social media account. HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: IMDB lists him as director of three movies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence that this is uploaders own work. Almost certainly copied from the official website without valid permissions AhmadLX (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/honorable-chief-justice/. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
File was uploaded by user Pressnapa which is acronim from Press of National Academy for Public Administration - former university in Ukraine. And it is collective account. Metadata contains name of the real author but without any permission. So, it is copyright violation. Kharkivian (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused photo of personal drawings, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom, Out of scope and no educational value. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Based on the fact volumes from the 1950's contain clear notices, All post 1928 editions are being tagged, If someone wants to individually check for the lack of notices or renewals feel free, otherwise these should be deleted until teh copyright expires.... There is no copyright notice containing the 3 required elements (copyright symbol/word/abbreviation, year, and publisher), but the copyright symbol is present on pp. 4 and 6. Is this {{PD-US-defective notice}}? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - I don't see any (c) or date -- certainly no notice. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
own work highly unlikely, needs to state sources as copyvio is possible Enyavar (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
All the website states is that you can use the images but nothing is mentioned about making derivative works or commercial use.
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (18).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (19).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (20).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (21).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (22).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (23).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (24).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (25).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (26).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (27).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (28).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (29).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (30).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (31).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (32).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (33).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (34).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (35).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (36).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (37).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (38).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (39).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (40).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (41).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (42).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (43).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (44).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (45).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (46).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (47).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (48).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (49).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (50).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (51).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (52).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (53).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (54).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (55).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (56).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (57).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (58).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (59).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (60).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (61).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (62).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (63).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (64).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (65).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (66).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (67).jpg
- File:2017 Yadman-e-Isar military exhibition in Baharestan (68).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (049).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (050).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (051).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (052).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (053).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (054).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (055).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (056).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (057).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (058).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (059).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (060).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (061).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (062).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (063).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (064).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (065).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (066).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (067).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (068).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (069).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (070).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (071).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (072).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (073).jpg
- File:Eqtedar 40 defence exhibition (2020) (074).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (01).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (02).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (03).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (04).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (05).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (06).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (07).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (08).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (09).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (10).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (11).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (12).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (13).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (14).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (15).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (16).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (17).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (18).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (19).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (20).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (21).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (22).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (23).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (24).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (25).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (26).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (27).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (28).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (29).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (30).jpg
- File:Parade of Muhammad Rasulollah Corps of Greater Tehran in 2022 (31).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(049).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(050).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(051).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(052).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(053).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(054).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(055).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(056).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(057).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(058).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(059).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(060).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(061).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(062).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(063).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(064).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(065).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(066).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(067).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(068).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(069).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(070).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(071).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(072).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(073).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(074).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hanooz 11:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The website says that use is unrestricted which means that there are no restrictions on use. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- DeleteDelete any files from tehranpicture.ir. In this footer of website wrote: کلیه حقوق این وب سایت متعلق به آژانس عکس تهران می باشد. Means: All rights of this website belong to Tehran Photo Agency. --MehdiTalk 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and translation in the comment from Mehdi. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:PORN, does this really add anything new to our collection of photographs of nude women, or pictures of vaginas?
- File:BareHikingPA.jpg
- File:Masturbation(IMG00671Ed).jpg
- File:Masturbation(IMG00670Ed.jpg).jpg
- File:Masturbation(IMG00669Ed.JPG).jpg
- File:NakedModel(2017-06-01 00.12.03Ed).jpg
- File:CuntFace(IMG01196ED).jpg
- File:OiledCunt(IMG01082Ed1).jpg
- File:HangingLips(IMG00801Ed).jpg
- File:CuntCock.jpg
- File:BaldCunt(IMG00800Ed).jpg
- File:CuntFace(IMG01199Ed).jpg
- File:CuntFace.jpg
- File:CuntPhotographer.jpg
- File:TitFaces.jpg
- File:BodyAdorned.jpg
- File:PreparingtheModel.jpg
- File:AdornedNipples.jpg
- File:BondageModel2.jpg
- File:BondageModel1.jpg
- File:TweakingNipples.jpg
- File:BondageModel3.jpg
- File:NancyatSunsportGardens.jpg
- File:Nude On dock.jpg
- File:NakedPosing.jpg
- File:Clipt, Bald Cunt.jpg
- File:IMG01081Ed, Oiled Body Cunt displayed.jpg
- File:Posing to display her charms.jpg
- File:IMG01082Ed, Oiled Body Cunt displayed.jpg
- File:Bare and Bold.jpg
- File:Bold Cunt framed with Jewels.jpg
- File:Naked at Gunnison Beach.jpg
- File:Bald worn out cunt.jpg
- File:While decorating the Christmas tree Nancy hangs balls on her nipples.jpg
- File:Aroused vulva.jpg
- File:Working Pussy.jpg
- File:Used Pussy.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}
Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I could see keeping File:Bold Cunt framed with Jewels.jpg, which is good as a thumbnail and not an absolutely typical shot, but I can't see why we need any of the other photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of pornography is completely different from what the images would fulfill. Netpilots (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Their quality is decent and they depict far more than just pornography IMO. I see them as somehow educationally valuable. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t see the value. What is your reasoning? Dronebogus (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The pictures all have vulgar titles and descriptions that indicate they are indeed porn. Some of them are good quality but generic, and I don’t want to humor someone who thinks “CuntCock” is an appropriate file name. A lot of them are just random photos of vaginas and we have established we have more than enough of those. One was already deleted on that basis. Dronebogus (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. "Cunt" is discriminating aganist women. Delete. Elmschrat (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete (all) and block uploader indefinite. Commons is not for garbage Юрий Д.К 15:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The photos are of reasonably good quality and may serve an encyclopedic purpose. Having plenty of vulva pictures is actually desirable, since each vulva is unique and there is so much variety. The project would be limiting itself by excluding other files simply because it already “has enough”. It seems that perhaps the nominator and some of the voters have a prudish discomfort with nudity and language, which is unfortunate but does not provide adequate reasoning for removing these files (see NOTCENSORED). And by the same token, “Commons is not for garbage” is not a valid reason for deletion, let alone for blocking a prolific contributor to the project. StMartinsEvangelical (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please see COM:NUDITY and COM:PORN. Being opposed to prurient crudeness is not being a prude. I spend just as much time defending genuinely unique and valuable contributions to nudity and sexuality from bluenosers and know bad nudity/sexuality uploads when I see them. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I’m doubting your reasons for voting “strong keep” are totally… intellectual... given your entire edit history is adding unnecessarily horny captions to images of vaginas. Go take a cold shower, please. Dronebogus (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I reaffirm my keep vote. I’m sorry, but you cannot tell me that the project would be better off without such valuable contributions as File:CuntCock.jpg and especially the CuntFace pieces, which to my knowledge are the only photographs on commons featuring a vulva with googly eyes. Where do you propose we would get a replacement for images such as these, exactly? StMartinsEvangelical (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- We don’t need an image of a vulva with googly eyes at all. We are not a collection of random nonsense, explicit or not. Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The quality is poor, so this is COM:PORN territory. (Disclosure: I got to this discussion via viewing StMartinsEvangelical's contributions per a COM:ANUP post.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Poor quality amateur porn. Commons already has mountains of this ("low-quality photographs of genitalia are generally deleted quickly"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I would say the lighting caused a big problem on these photos and resulted in low quality COM:Nudity--A1Cafel (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:PENIS Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect Sedruqk (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete. --Achim55 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Desncessary redirection Sedruqk (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete. --Achim55 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No indication of it being published prior to creation of University website, the website states that "San José State University is the copyright holder of this photograph."|source=https://oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt5199q38d/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4. Claimed PD-US-1978-89, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Photograph itself has a clear copyright notice. Ted Sahl, Copyright symbol with 1985 as the year. Still in copyright. Sahl is still living so undeletion date is unknown --Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Inferior version of file File:Logo del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes.png Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Yes, it has been superceded by the .png but we can still keep it. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
likely copyright violation: [3], photograph by Studio Harcourt Antimuonium (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Studio Harcourt archive was bought by the French government and released under a CC license. That is why we house several thousand images in the category. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. Please provide a link so that can be verified (definitely could be useful in undeleting photos by Studio Harcourt). Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) please see the above comment. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. Please provide a link so that can be verified (definitely could be useful in undeleting photos by Studio Harcourt). Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- One thing is certain, it is that the archive acquired by the French government is not released under a CC license. The Harcourt photos hosted on Commons either were licensed by Harcourt or are considered to be in the public domain. Details below. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- The company is still making new images, the transfer was for images up to 1991. The VRT is here, if you have the ability to read VRTs: User:Studio Harcourt --RAN (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)https://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2009/09/10/03004-20090910ARTFIG00352-harcourt-soixante-quinze-ans-de-classicisme-.php
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Does this change your !vote to delete? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is 2013 the date of the image creation or the date it was scanned? Someone who reads French and has access to the VRT can see if the agreement covers images beyond 1991, the transfer of negatives was in 1991. Note that the uploader of the newer images, is Studio Harcourt, and the studio itself appears to have released newer images not covered by the transfer to the archive. --RAN (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is difficult to estimate the age of the subject on the photo. He was 83 years old in 2013. It is possible that the photo was taken in 2013. Anyway, it would be prudent to assume that it was taken after 1991.
- The 2010 VRT ticket (#2010061710041251) from Studio Harcourt has already been discussed. (And the whole situation about Studio Harcourt more generally has been even more abundantly discussed.) From past discussions (cf. one example there), it is known that the essential point is that VRT confirmed that the account User:Studio Harcourt on Wikimedia was indeed officially representing the Studio Harcourt. That means that the files uploaded to Commons specifically by that account are legitimately offered by Studio Harcourt under the license (CC BY 3.0) indicated by that account.
- Those uploads, a sample of photos from its collection, were made in 2010 from Studio Harcourt via this account. If one reviews the files uploaded by the account chronologically, it can be observed that they were generally uploaded in alphabetical order of the subjects names. They started with names beginning with "A", "B", "C", etc., and eventually got to the letter "F", at which point they stopped. Apparently, they expected that the watermark of Studio Harcourt would be kept on those files and that the sizes could be reduced. However, some users were removing the mark from some photos (which is allowed by the license) and reverted the changes. That apparently sort of disappointed Studio Harcourt and they ended the series of uploads.
- Anyway, the important point for the present discussion is that the Harcourt photos from after 1991 are simply in an ordinary copyright situation, the same as any recent work in general, i.e. they are under copyright by the copyright holder (which we assume is Studio Harcourt, unless proven otherwise) and they are not free unless the copyright holder explicitly releases them under a free license or to the public domain. The limited group of photos uploaded to Commons directly by the authorized account Studio Harcourt in 2010 are released, as mentioned above. The Studio Harcourt could always release other photos, but then Commons would need evidence of release for each photo.
- The uploader of File:Roland Copé.jpg (who, from his user name, might be the subject of the photo or not) stated that he is the copyright holder of that photo. That statement is possibly an occurence of a common error of some clients who believe that they own the copyright. It is theoretically possible that the subject acquired the copyright by contract of transfer of copyright, but it cannot be assumed and Commons would need evidence of that arrangement. However, it is strange that the file has been on Commons for ten years and nobody asked the question.
- About the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992, currently they seem accepted on Commons as public domain on the basis of the 2020 VRT ticket (#2020112910005534) from Studio Harcourt. One can refer to this 2021 discussion. In short: The material negatives were acquired by the French ministry of Culture, but it is not clear that the copyright was transferred to it. The spokesperson for the Studio Harcourt says explicitly that there is no copyright on those photos and that they can be used freely. Speaking of that collection from 1934 to 1991 acquired by the ministry, she writes (my translation from French): "This photographic fonds is not under copyright, so anyone who owns a portrait from 1934-1991 may use it freely and you may use a portrait found on internet." The Commons user who obtained that statement sent a copy to VRT. It is the 2020 VRT mentioned above. On the other hand, the museal organization that publicize the collections of the ministry says that the State owns a copyright and that the photos cannot be used freely. But the statements of that organization are considered not necessarily reliable (it claims copyrights on public domain material, see the 2021 discussion). So, there are two schools of thought on Commons about those photos. Some users believe the statement by Studio Harcourt that those photos are in the public domain and can be used freely. Some other users believe the statement of the museal organization that the copyright is owned by the French ministry and that the photos cannot be used freely.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Missing evidence to support the claim of the uploader that he holds the copyright on this Studio Harcourt photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Not covered by VRT ticket and not public domain in France. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
apparent copyvio. you can see the image in use in this 2018 newspaper article. from 2018, attributed to Eli Guy (אלי גיא) DGtal (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Personal images. These are the only remaining contributions of this user -- one obvious copyvio has been deleted and another image of the user with a false {{Own}} claim has been deleted.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Selfies. Which we permit, for Wikimedia users with some contribution history. That includes the Catalan wikipedia, which is their home wiki (and where one of these is currently INUSE). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough contribution history, at least as of yet, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The first selfie is interesting. I think we could keep them both, hopefully the uploader decides to contribute more to Wikimedia projects. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File full of information you don't need. Sedruqk (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use. File appears to have educational use regardless. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
My picture are not used Bcroks (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Good quality photograph, and the only one we have that shows Diskerud playing for Helsingborg. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
May not be own work, image appears albeit at lower resolution in a 2013 news article (https://kashmirlife.net/introducing-omars-new-10-ministers-17271/) and other uploads from this user have been copyvios. Belbury (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Japordinaryman (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Erect penis-17.jpg
- File:Erect penis-16.jpg
- File:Erect penis-15.jpg
- File:Erect penis-14.jpg
- File:Examples of male masturbation-11.gif
- File:Human penis erection-Sp.gif
- File:Male nudist-2.jpg
- File:Male nudist-1.jpg
- File:Woman giving handjob-2.gif
- File:Woman giving Hand job.gif
- File:Human semen 5.gif
- File:Human semen 8.gif
- File:Human semen 7.gif
- File:Human semen 6.gif
- File:Human semen 4.gif
- File:Human-ejaculation 2.jpg
- File:Human-ejaculation 1.jpg
- File:Human-ejaculation 3.jpg
- File:Human penis-3.jpg
- File:Human penis-4.jpg
- File:Nudist-3.jpg
- File:Nudist-9.jpg
- File:Nudist-17.jpg
- File:Nudist-8.jpg
- File:Nudist-7.jpg
- File:Nudist-5.jpg
- File:Nudist-4.jpg
- File:Nudist-2.jpg
- File:Erect penis-2.jpg
- File:Japanese Human penis My naked body.jpg
- File:Human penis My naked body.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for (specially 3):
- Weak keep for:
- Delete the rest, useless. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can see what you’re getting at with the first four, but there’s nothing so great about them that I’d withdraw or anything. The latter two are poor quality and duplicate the existing, better files on the subject Dronebogus (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept 4 as those would have some value, deleted the rest as they're just COM:Penis pics. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Most likely screenshot from YouTube. 188.123.231.28 11:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hello! Yes, this is screenshot from my video recording of Alexander Tkachev (1955-2011). After his death, I uploaded this video on Youtube and made a few video clips on his songs. So it looks like that is screenshot from Youtube but the source is my video tape. Please don't delete it! Thank you for cooperation! Regards, Alexei Oukleine
- (In Russian) Да, это скриншот из моей видеозаписи Александра Ткачёва (1955-2011). После его смерти я выложил это видео на Youtube и сделал несколько видеоклипов на его песни. Так что внешне это похоже на скриншот с Youtube, но источником является моя видеокассета. Пожалуйста, не удаляйте эту фотографию! Благодарю за сотрудничество! С уважением, Алексей Уклеин. Alexukl (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Alexukl. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Toddst1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://rehs.com/eng/default-artist-page/?fl_builder&artist_no=536&sold=0
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as external hit is undated and image has lower resolution than our image. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not being deleted since February, probably because it's in use. I just opened a deletion discussion for a similar case, see today's list, which was waiting for speedy. There must be a "rule" (protocol, policy, whatever you call it) for these cases. 191.126.136.117 22:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean you wait either 6 hours or 6 months but the same period in similar cases. 191.126.136.117 02:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; the de-WP user who is listed as the author appears to be in good standing, if not very active, so there's no reason to suspect copyvio. —holly {chat} 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
LAPL TESSA files
[edit]File:Claude Lamar Reeves.jpg(found, published 1954)File:Ellis A Jarvis 1961.jpg(found, published 1961)- File:John Ferarro, 1956.jpg
- File:Lemoine Blanchard, 1950.jpg
File:Thomas D. Shepard, 1961.jpg(found, published 1961)- File:Charles Navarro, 1961.jpg
- File:Ernani Bernardi, 1964.jpg
File:Paul H. Lamport, 1965.jpg(found, published 1965)File:Leland S. Warburton, 1947.jpg(found, published 1947)- File:Don A. Allen, 1948.jpg
File:John C. Holland, 1959.jpg(found, published 1959)- File:Carl C. Rasmussen, 1945.png
File:Karl L. Rundberg, 1956.jpg(found, published 1955)File:Robert M. Wilkinson, 1958.jpg(found, published 1958)File:Donald D. Lorenzen, 1958.jpg(found, published 1958)- File:Joe E. Hollingsworth, 1961.jpg
File:Jack P Crowther.jpg(found, published 1962)File:Patrick D. McGee, 1965.jpg(found, published 1965)- File:Harriett Davenport.jpg
Files that I uploaded in 2022. Most are from the Valley Times Collection, which existed from 1946 to 1970, and were donated to the Los Angeles Public Library and digitized in 2013. Most of them were shot in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not sure if the photographs have been actually published before, as I have not been able to find some of them in publications of the Valley Times, meaning that they may not be out of copyright due to being unpublished. If someone is able to find a publication for some of the images, they could maybe be kept if there isn't a copyright notice on the newspaper. reppoptalk 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:Thomas D. Shepard, 1961.jpg and File:Donald D. Lorenzen, 1958.jpg both have UND 1.0. (copyright undetermined) in the "Rights" section. Another file, File:Clair Engle (D-CA).jpg and its derivative File:Clair Engle (D-CA) (cropped, 3x4).jpg, have the same thing and use the templates CC-zero and Attribution. reppoptalk 19:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped,_3x4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Comment I was able to find a bunch of them on Newspapers.com, though I'm still not sure on the copyright status. I see some stories having copyright, but never attributed to the Valley Times, mostly other organizations (Newsmax, Publishers-Hall Syndicate, New York Herald Tribune, etc). If someone is able to confirm if the Valley Times had copyright on its own, then we would be able to see if they can be kept or not. reppoptalk 18:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't been able to find any copyright on the newspaper itself, not counting the copyright from individual stories that come from other press organizations. reppoptalk 04:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted the images which were not identified, kept the others. @Reppop: thanks for sorting this out. --Ellywa (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)