Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/04/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.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}
![56 File:"En plena actividad" óleo 90 x 100 cm.jpg](#File:"En_plena_actividad"_óleo_90_x_100_cm.jpg){kind=link}
_on_finals_at_Malta.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_a_luncheon_in_Leeds_with_Lord_Harewood_(left).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
its spam content! 75lg8yczyd (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Falsche Datei vom Bild hochgeladen BrandenburgPreußenMuseum (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a screenshot from a copyrighted broadcast. Kigsz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Kept - Kigsz Please pay more attention in future as the video is CC licenced (It currently says: License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)). –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/breaking-chelsea-record-bid-fernandez-29087215 Iggy the Swan (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Per Google Lens, I guess this photo is taken somewhere else and not their own work. Iggy the Swan (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - obvious copyright violation. Ravensfire (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded while creating a new page but understood later that it was inadequate. Hermenegildo Capelo (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded while creating a new page but understood later that it was inadequate. Hermenegildo Capelo (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Copy righted from Getty images Ariam (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; blatant copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no evidence that this image was uploaded by the author himself because their Wikimedia account has been indefinitely blocked for years. Q28 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep there is no reason to remove this image which Hans Hillewaert is the author. He was expelled for good reasons of inappropriate behavior.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy keep, uploaded in 2010 and the identity of this user is well-known. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a part of the photo from https://riamediabank.ru/media/28330.html?query=%20%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%BA%D0%BF%D1%81%D1%81&selection=media&sort=date&order=desc&context=search and the source is not under Creative Commons license. It seems that the uploader is not the author of the image. This is violation of the rules. FlorianH76 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 05:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Not sure that Roblox uses Creative Commons CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Wüdergman (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Rakdarathaihk (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Guessing this is copyrighted, see Google Lens results Iggy the Swan (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Polarlys. --Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Qué wea? Dos fotos sin licencia... 181.203.98.125 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Gbawden. --Rosenzweig τ 08:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arturo221122 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I cannot see how these images can fall within the scope of our project. They would seem to be of no educational use.
- File:Firma arturo tedisa jpg.jpg
- File:Firma arturo tedisa.pdf
- File:Judith Garro.pdf
- File:Judith Garro.jpg
Herby talk thyme 07:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- TRUE. There has been a confusion when choosing the images. Delete them please.Sorry. Arturo221122 (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author's request. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of com:PS Hanooz 11:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:NOTUSED. Unused screenshots of questionable notability software.
- File:TildaCRM14.jpg
- File:TildaCRM6.jpg
- File:TildaCRM23.jpg
- File:TildaCRM21.jpg
- File:TildaCRM15.jpg
- File:TildaCRM13.jpg
- File:TildaCRM3.jpg
- File:TildaCRM11.jpg
- File:TildaCRM9.jpg
- File:TildaCRM5.jpg
- File:TildaCRM4.jpg
- File:TildaCRM22.jpg
- File:TildaCRM20.jpg
- File:TildaCRM19.jpg
- File:TildaCRM18.jpg
- File:TildaCRM17.jpg
- File:TildaCRM16.jpg
- File:TildaCRM12.jpg
- File:TildaCRM10.jpg
- File:TildaCRM8.jpg
- File:TildaCRM7.jpg
- File:TildaCRM1.jpg
- File:TildaCRM2.jpg
Netora (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: Facebook. Yann (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
w:Amédée Ozenfant died in 1966. These works have France as their country of origin, the artist would move to the United States in 1938 but these are well before that and so cannot be hosted on Commons until 2037 when they would be public domain in France.
- File:Amédée Ozenfant, 1921, Nature morte au verre de vin rouge (Still Life with Glass of Red Wine), oil on canvas, 50.6 x 61.2 cm, Kunstmuseum, Basel.jpg
- File:Amédée Ozenfant, 1920, Still Life, Dishes, oil on canvas, 72 x 59.5 cm, Hermitage Museum.jpg
- File:Amédée Ozenfant, 1920-21, Nature morte (Still Life), oil on canvas, 81.28 cm x 100.65 cm, SFMOMA.jpg
,_oil_on_canvas,_50.6_x_61.2_cm,_Kunstmuseum,_Basel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_oil_on_canvas,_81.28_cm_x_100.65_cm,_SFMOMA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Abzeronow (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vuss Vilanculos
[edit]Promotional content.
- File:Collages1.jpg
- File:Vuss Vilanculos Another World 2021 EP poster.jpg
- File:Vuss Vilanculos Aother World POSTER.jpg
- File:VUSS VILANCULOS QUOTES.jpg
- File:Vuss Vilanculos The Net Work Original Cover.jpg
- File:Vuss Vilanculos Working Current Song Cover.jpg
- File:VUSS VILANCULOS-ANOTHER WORLD-ALBUM-COVER.jpg
Lymantria (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Tiny photograph, TinEye shows earlier hits with larger resolution than upload to commons like https://www.teilzeithelden.de/2016/07/30/ein-nerdiger-nebenjob-hinter-den-kulissen-des-grusellabyrinth-nrw-maskworld-verlosung/#jp-carousel-28621 Probably a netcopyvio Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Achim55 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors (talk · contribs)
[edit]These seem to be images promoting a specific channel and are therefore outside the scope of our project
- File:CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors Channel logo (2023, updated).png
- File:CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors Channel profile picture (2023, original).jpg
- File:CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors Channel profile picture (2023, updated).png
- File:CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors Channel emblem (2023, updated).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Herby talk thyme 07:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ii need these logos and pfps for my crazy errors!
- If you delete them I wont be able to use them on my crazy error videos anymore and I'll need to start over! CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Remember. these are the logos and pfps for my terminated youtube channel!
- And why did you nominate these for deleteion! CoilbookVistaCrazyErrors (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion is given. Your channel has no relevance to this project so is out of scope. Herby talk thyme 14:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not own work thats for sure. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. Screenshot from the thumbnail of this YouTube video. User also has history of many copyvios. Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. Screenshot from this video. Not to mention that the user themselves admit that the image is from an interview. Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. Image taken from here. Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. Image taken from here. Hamza Ali Shah (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not useful 178.51.33.158 02:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted 178.51.33.158 02:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Info Only copyrighted works can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Meaningless penis art, I honestly don't know where is the educational value A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand that this image does not necessarily show as having an educational value. However it does make light of body parts and puts it into a humorist perspective. It does show originality. CalusUse (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that the three submissions are absolutely an art form and were submitted into the correct category. . CalusUse (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The type of art that these submissions represent is called "Obstract" CalusUse (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The type of art that these submissions represent is called "Obstract" CalusUse (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add additional information to help guide people through this judgement of original art. As I have mentioned previously, people who dislike or find no merit in art work may claim that it has no educational benefit. However if one was to search google for these images in question and click on image source they would find hundreds of similar styles of this art. Mine being original and not in a gallery would not show among the hundreds listed. CalusUse (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope IMO. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Meaningless penis art, I honestly don't know where is the educational value A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand that this image does not necessarily show as having an educational value. However it does make light of body parts and puts it into a humorist perspective. It does show originality. CalusUse (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do believe that the three submissions in question are absolutely an art form and that they are in the correct category. CalusUse (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The type of art that these submissions represent is called "Obstract" CalusUse (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The type of art that these submissions represent is called "Obstract" CalusUse (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add additional information to help guide people through this judgement of original art. As I have mentioned previously, people who dislike or find no merit in art work may claim that it has no educational benefit. However if one was to search google for these images in question and click on image source they would find hundreds of similar styles of this art. Mine being original and not in a gallery would not show among the hundreds listed. CalusUse (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Meaningless penis art, I honestly don't know where is the educational value A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand that this image does not necessarily show as having an educational value. However it does make light of body parts and puts it into a humorist perspective. It does show originality. CalusUse (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand that this image does not necessarily show as having an educational value. However it does make light of body parts and puts it into a humorist perspective. It does show originality. I do believe that the three submissions are absolutely an art form. CalusUse (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The type of art that these submissions represent is called "Obstract" CalusUse (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add additional information to help guide people through this judgement of original art. As I have mentioned previously, people who dislike or find no merit in art work may claim that it has no educational benefit. However if one was to search google for these images in question and click on image source they would find hundreds of similar styles of this art. Mine being original and not in a gallery would not show among the hundreds listed. CalusUse (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here. Uploader gives a creation date of 23 January 2015, but also claims it is a picture the uploader took in "the summer of 2019". Note that there is no Rosa Parks St in Detroit. There is a Rosa Parks Blvd. I have no problem with keeping this image if the uploader corrects these problems, but I doubt it will actually be useful as it seems to have been uploaded as the location of an unsourced claim added to the English Wikipedia "Alleged bin Laden sightings in the United States" article Meters (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader is now indef'ed on English Wikipedia, so is not likely to explain why there are two different dates for this image. Meters (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well the photo wouldn't say "©2023 Google" if it was self-taken. 77.172.178.242 23:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Used only for vandalism General Ization (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Used only for vandalism General Ization (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Used only for vandalism General Ization (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and probably COM:SS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
private photo Mitte27 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph, appears to be out of COM:SCOPE. AFBorchert (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Artist Quinquela Martín died in 1977, copyright not expired yet A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
![07:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/12#c-A1Cafel-20230412070800-File:"En_plena_actividad"_óleo_90_x_100_cm.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![07:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/12#c-Gbawden-20230419075100-File:"En_plena_actividad"_óleo_90_x_100_cm.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No license/permission from cpb.com.br A1Cafel (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Lack of permission from Weverse A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Very unlikely to be own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Phanbonhalan.vietnam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Educational purpose is not shown.
- File:Phân bón NPK - Seven.jpg
- File:Phân bón NPK Hà Lan - Big One.jpg
- File:Phân bón Amazon.jpg
- File:Toàn cảnh Công ty CP Phân bón Hà Lan.jpg
Tryvix1509 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete For advertisment only. I am I Talk 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment There might be copyright and scope issues with the photos of fertilizer bags, but why should the photo of the building be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- In Vietnamese, the word "fertilizer" means "Phân bón". And the uploader's username is "Phanbonhalan.vietnam", which means "Hà Lan Fertilizer", so I can assume this user uploaded these pictures not for educational purposes. Tryvix1509 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The uploader's intended purpose of a photo of a building does not matter, only whether it is in scope and could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and i have my doubts thatthe building photo was own work. --Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, low resolution better file File:Renoir - Apples and Flowers, 1895-1896.jpg Oursana (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, low resolution, 4 better files see Category:Chrysanthemums (1881-1882) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir in the Art Institute of Chicago Oursana (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The offcial website indicates a copyright https://www.wurmonline.com/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible ad: Trying to bypass the article on Wikipedia, No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCknf2F80NJInjWcDmxhlFLw CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Nudity file Michel Bakni (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. --Karim talk to me :)..! 18:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. --Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
non-free logos should be uploaded locally and not at the Commons Snowflake91 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Vernissage der Verkaufsausstellung der Bilder Christa Reinhardts. Freigabeerklärung der Künstlerin Christa Reinhardt für ihre Kunstwerke fehlt. --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: A copyright is on the watermark CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Offizieller Prospekt der Stadt Hannover, keine Freigabeerklärung des Grafikers für die Veröffentlichung. URV. --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The image has a visible copyright (bottom right) which the license completely ignores. Therefore very likely copyright violation. 2001:A61:1056:7C01:6453:6DBE:BE22:599 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not a work of the federal government since "Photo by Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Heart Truth". The NIH template even says "please ensure this image was created by the US Federal governement. The NIH frequently uses commercial images that are not public domain". Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also the metadata even says " Copyright - 2012 Getty Images" which also would indicate this is not public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
_on_finals_at_Malta.jpg){kind=link}
_on_finals_at_Malta.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo has a visible watermark from airliners.net (center) which the license contradicts. Uploader is not the author. 2001:A61:1056:7C01:6453:6DBE:BE22:599 16:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
_on_finals_at_Malta.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, photo has OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
_on_finals_at_Malta.jpg){kind=link}
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused "test" image, seems out of scope. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The first original photo has been published by DHA (Demirören News Agency) on 23 September 2022. [1]. So the copyrighted photo will be deleted. Uncitoyen (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author died in 1987. Undelete in 2058. Abzeronow (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Severly blurred beyond recognition Judithcomm (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
EXIF data indicates this was first published on Facebook. The person depicted is credited as the author Vera (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Previously uploaded for my user page, I've since changed it MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of free license Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete After 1 week for compliance with COM:VRT. A09 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
low quality, better iamge available at Thibaut 1198.jpg Giltsbeach (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - File is in use, Thibaut 1198.jpg is a different picture
- --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Packaging is above the threshold of originality and looks too new to be in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Excluded educational content. Raw text. Better hosted elsewhere. Headlock0225 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, replaced by File:DL-Lysine acetylsalicylate v.01.svg. Leyo 14:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clearly copied from an uncited source as you can see the plus and minus buttons for zooming in and out and there's a strange border at the left hand side. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- The descriptor "special" is vague and subjective. It is as equally educational and relevant as other images that result when searching for terms that yield the image in question as a result. Koreanwhereitcounts (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Micropenis is a unique criteria that provides more educational purpose than an ordinary penis photo. However, this image is slightly blurry and it has low resolution (480×360). Considering we had hundreds of micropenis photos, I think deletion wouldn't cause much problems. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete we have good pictures of micropenises. We don’t need this. Dronebogus (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:VULVA photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete not great Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
File:1927 - Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton (in Mayoral chains) at a luncheon in Leeds with Lord Harewood (left).jpg
[edit]_at_a_luncheon_in_Leeds_with_Lord_Harewood_(left).jpg){kind=link}
_at_a_luncheon_in_Leeds_with_Lord_Harewood_(left).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is possibly copyrighted and must therefore be deleted. Per COM:EVID, it has not been shown by the uploader nor by others that the image is in public domain and that the licenses on the file page, {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}} are valid. I will include further information on the deletion request page. Ellywa (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- File history: Shortly after uploading of the file in 2020 there was some strange editting on the file. The uploader erased a no permission since template, which remained unnoticed. The file was nominated for deletion on 21 November 2022 by Yann in a mass deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Srbernadette. Ran added {{PD-UK-unknown}} to the file page on 22 November 2022, without clear motivation. On 9 December 2022 Fitindia deleted the file based on the original Deletion Request. On 2 February 2023, Yann undeleted the file. The same date, Yann added {{PD-US-expired}}. Also, this license was added without clear motivation or evidence. Yann wrote on the Deletion Request file is "OK" but did not strike out the file on the list. On 5 April 2023, I closed the deletion request and decided to delete the file, because I could not find the source and another image at the source showed credits. On 6 April 2023, Yann undeleted the file a second time, with motivation "PD now". Later I deleted the file again, because I thought I had forgotten to delete it, but undeleted because I saw Yann had undeleted the file. Yann omitted to get into touch and explain; assuming good faith, they possibly forgot. I was notified by an anonymous user.
- Motivations to delete the file. Doubting my own decision, I asked the opinion of Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig answered after extensive research and concluded:
- I've looked at the case, and there are quite a number of problems there. First the good news: The 1927 date is most likely correct, assuming the person with mayoral chains we see is really this Hugh Lupton fellow. Accd. to en:List of mayors of Leeds, he was Lord Mayor of Leeds in 1926/1927, so the photo should have been taken then.
- But the file has no proper source, because it is not from this Telegraph article given as the source. I've looked at multiple archived versions in the Internet Archive as well, the image is not there. So there is no proper source, we cannot know when it was published first, and we cannot know if it is really anonymous as claimed. Which means the whole license used for the file is not backed up by any evidence. Reading through some discussions in which the uploader participated, I did not get the impression that this is a reliable person with copyright knowledge, which would explain the wrong source.
- I've also searched newspapers.com for newspaper articles from 1927 about mayor Hugh Lupton, and I found quite a few, but none of them with a photo. Newspapers in those days printed less photos than now, so it's not at all certain that the photo we see was published at the time. These two things together are enough for significant doubt per COM:PCP, so I think your decision to delete the file was correct.
- Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- In addition, I would like to add that both templates added to the file are not valid. The original uploader failed to show permission and even deleted the "missing permission" template. The templates {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}} added by other users are not valid, because there is no evidence at all that the file has ever been published (anonymously or credited) in the UK or in the US. We do not know what the source was the uploader used, in any case, it is not the source listed on the file page. Therefore, imho the file is possibly still copyrighted, according to our consensus, until 120 years after the photo was taken, 1927, so the file must be deleted now and can be undeleted in 2048.
- Possible source. It is not sure, but the file might be a screen print of a 1927 film. For instance this film shows at 0:52 the same Hugh Lupton in the same chains during a visit by Princess Mary. Perhaps more films are available which are showing this scene. The original film might or might not be credited, we do not know, so based on this possible source, the file should be deleted as well.
- Proposal for closure: I hope that another admin, not the admins involved in the discussions, will be able to close this deletion request. Thanks for reading all of this, Ellywa (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This obviously published at in 1927, so {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}} apply. This is beyond significant doubt, which is our standard for keeping or deleting files here. Yann (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete @Yann: I disagree, I do have significant doubt. Why do you think the photo was „obviously“ published in 1927? What is so obvious about it? Where would it have been published? And how do you know, if it was published, that it was published anonymously without a credit (because only then PD-UK-unknown would be applicable)? As you can read above, my search of 1927 newspapers (British, Canadian and American) did find several articles about this person, but none with a photo. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- * Keep Here is a photo the page (7) that the photo in question appeared in the UK Daily Telegraph - IMG_20230421_131412.jpg. I will try to upload it onto commons - but I find this very hard to do. Thanks for your patience. Srbernadette (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) I've done it! - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Harewood_(right)_with_Leeds_Lord_Mayor_Hugh_Lupton_in_far_right_b%26w_photo.jpg
- *
_with_Leeds_Lord_Mayor_Hugh_Lupton_in_far_right_b%26w_photo.jpg){kind=link}
_with_Leeds_Lord_Mayor_Hugh_Lupton_in_far_right_b%26w_photo.jpg){kind=link}
I hope this helps Srbernadette (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- So the photo was published in 2013. That does not tell us if it was published at any time in the 70 years after it was taken, so we still cannot tell if {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies or not, and we also can't really tell if the image is still copyrighted in the US (the terms there being based on the time of first publication). If the photo was published in 2013 for the first time, we would have to consider {{PD-US-unpublished}}, and it would be protected for 120 years from creation unless there is a known creator with a known year of death. --Rosenzweig τ 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- http://www.thoresby.org.uk/content/publications/publications.php "It may also be possible to purchase....digitised versions of issues that are out of copy right (generally those published 90 or more years ago)." N.B. - File from The Thoresby Society was photographed and originally published in the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - over 90 years ago in 1927. The photographer was freelance photographer who was largely retired by 1912. His name was "Mac Iver" of Leeds/Bradford. There was no initial in front of the surname so he would be Donald Mac Iver - died 1929. https://sites.google.com/site/leedsandbradfordstudios/home/donald-mac-iver
- So the photo was published in 2013. That does not tell us if it was published at any time in the 70 years after it was taken, so we still cannot tell if {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies or not, and we also can't really tell if the image is still copyrighted in the US (the terms there being based on the time of first publication). If the photo was published in 2013 for the first time, we would have to consider {{PD-US-unpublished}}, and it would be protected for 120 years from creation unless there is a known creator with a known year of death. --Rosenzweig τ 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Try this website if above Thoresby site is not good - https://www.thoresby.org.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
N.B. - There is a very small chance that the photo was taken by his daughter who was possibly employed as a photographer's assistant at The Yorkshire Post. But as the file/photo is of Royalty - I think it likely that her father was asked to do the photos for the newspaper. Hope this helps Srbernadette (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- The link [2] does not exist (404 error). Where does all this information come from, what is the actual source where one could verify or falsify it? Also, there is no newspaper named Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, in 1927 that would have been The Yorkshire Post. On which date was the photo published? --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Try the above link for Thoresby https://www.thoresby.org.uk/
Also - The company (known as Yorkshire Post Newspapers) acquired the Leeds Mercury in 1923 and merged it with the Yorkshire Post in 1939. The company was renamed "Yorkshire Post Newspapers" in 1969. I Hope this helps Srbernadette (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- That does NOT answer my questions above. --Rosenzweig τ 09:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Should the uploader of this file record that the file came from the Lupton Mayoralty Album, (@https://www.thoresby.org.uk/ published/displayed at the time - 1927) that the photo was taken? I get confused. Shall we ask @Yann: for advice? Sorry again. Srbernadette (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Srbernadette: You keep posting a link to that Thoresby web site as if that were the answer to everything. But it is not. Now you are mentioning a Lupton Mayoralty Album. What is that? Does it have a history? Can it be found on that web site? If yes, please give a proper link directly to that content and don't make everyone else guess. Is it that hard to give proper, complete and accurate information which others can use to verify what you claim? Also, you still did not answer the questions above: Where does all this information come from, what is the actual source where one could verify or falsify it? On which date was the photo published in the newspaper in 1927 as claimed, and which paper was it actually? --Rosenzweig τ 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Here is a link that might help - the photographer died in 1929 and the photo has been on display: https://www.leodis.net/viewimage/94705
which references this site: https://www.thoresby.org.uk/ - all good I think. Srbernadette (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. --Yann (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Meeting of Volodymyr Zelensky with the President of Latvia and the Prime Minister of Poland, 9 September 2022.jpg
[edit]
Per talk page of the {{President.gov.ua}}, the Office of the President of Ukraine switched the license from CC-BY-4.0 to CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 on 4 October 2022, thus image published afterwards fails Common's licenseing requirement A1Cafel (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree - I will change the file to one put on Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland (where there is a license CC 3.0 PL). NomenNescio14 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The photo was taken in September, i.e. before of the license change so that is not a valid reason. However, the file is a duplicate of File:Зустріч Глави держави з Президентом Латвії та Прем’єр-міністром Польщі 63.jpg Tm (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted as duplicate. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Rene Loeffler) M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Unused and nondescript photo of the wall in someone's room. No educational value Malcolma (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Flickr washing. Taylor Atkinson is not the author of the photo, was taken by Lukas Coch from Australian Associated Press, per exif data. This Flickr account takes press photos and re-uploads them under a PD mark.
There are several of these accounts on Flickr I have seen, all which should be blocked.
Taylor Atkinson: https://www.flickr.com/photos/194561460@N05/
Taylor Hartley: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151138079@N08/
madison.beer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192921173@N03/
Do Not Speak As Loud As My Heart https://www.flickr.com/photos/196100879@N08/ PascalHD (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
© 2015 HarianTimes.com All Right Reserved https://hariantimes.com/read-9834-2022-05-15-nama-muflihun-terus-menguat-sebagai-pj-walikota-pekanbaru.html Urang Kamang (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Personal picture. 178.199.217.52 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better file see Category:Les Fiancés - Le Ménage Sisley Oursana (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Clear copyvio Hamza Ali Shah Talk 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
File:U.S. Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis meets with U.S. Marines at the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Oct. 16, 2018 - 181016-D-BN624-0179.jpg
[edit]
Duplicate of [3] Ooligan (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SD_Visits_Ho_Chi_Minh_City_181016-D-BN624-179_(44638384154).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting by a living artist, VRT permission from artist Jonathan Truss needed. MKFI (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: date is claimed as 2023, but the image has been previously published already in 2018: https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16391927.award-winning-bournemouth-artist-jonathan-trusss-conservation-effort/ MKFI (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I put the wrong date for the photo - it was actually taken in 2014. How do we amend this?
- Thank you for your help. EvolutionSOS (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- @EvolutionSOS: you can edit the file description to fix the date. Since the image has been published previously it is best that you send a VRT permission to verify copyright. You can use Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. MKFI (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Low quality with no meaningful exif. Uploader has a history of uploading files from the web. PCP Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
not belong to MAhamed20223 MAhmed2023 (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Not belong to MAhmed2023 MAhmed2023 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Editminister (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are unlikely to be the uploader's own work, being six drawings in five extremely different styles. Another own work "rough sketch" from this user (File:Rough Sketch of Timmarusu minister of Vijayanagar Empire.png) is a filtered movie still.
- File:Rough Sketch of Ramappaiyen famous general of Tirumala nayaka.png
- File:Raja Siva simha of oiniwar led his army.png
- File:Skanda Commander of Prithviraj Chauhan III.png
- File:Gopana confronted a turk soldier of Madura Sultanate.png
- File:Khushaliram Bohra Dewan of Jaipur State.png
- File:Misr Dewan Chand commander-in-chief of Sikh army.png
Belbury (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Editminister (talk · contribs)
[edit]Reasonable quality artwork unlikely to be own work of the uploader given the poor quality of other uploads like File:Pandit Gangaram Chaube.png. User has history of falsely claiming own work.
Belbury (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake RunofRussian1 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work from TV program HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, COM:LL. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Error en títulos Senda1234 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
frivoulous, unusable Giltsbeach (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- important, usable Guccee (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not the right website for private flag designs. In addition, combining the colors of the modern German flag with the swastika is disgraceful. The use of a perverted symbol for sensual flags is deplorable. Uoijm77 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Flag is out of Commons scope. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not the right website for private flag designs. In addition, combining the colors of the modern German flag with the swastika is disgraceful. The use of a perverted symbol for sensual flags is deplorable. Uoijm77 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Flag is not in Commons Scope. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, low resolution better File:Pierre-auguste renoir coco au ruban rose 091429).jpg and File:Renoir - COCO AU RUBAN ROSE, 1905.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality and resolution better File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 092.jpg Oursana (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better File:Renoir - Coco lisant, 1905.jpg Oursana (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluded educational content. Raw text. Better hosted elsewhere. Headlock0225 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation MisterXS (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete person died in 2022, can not be on work of 2023. --Drakosh (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Image is far too small to be educationally useful. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tenemos los mejores platos de cobre en Chile pero no sacamos fotos... 181.203.98.125 01:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Quality is too poor to be useful. Better alternatives have since been made available at Category:Daniela Padoan. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- also affected: File:Deutsche-Bischofskonferenz Logo.jpg Achim55 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Im Namen der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz (DBK) bitten wir um die unverzügliche Löschung der Datei, die das Logo der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz zeigt. Die Datei wurde ohne Zustimmung im SVG-Format hochgeladen. Wir weisen darauf hin, dass für die Verwendung eine ausdrückliche Einwilligung seitens der DBK erteilt werden muss, die hier nicht erfolgt ist. Eine für die Wikipedia-Seite nutzbare Datei wurde bereits im JPG-Format hochgeladen. Wir bedanken uns im Voraus für Ihre Unterstützung und stehen für weitere Rückfragen gerne unter pressestelle@dbk.de zur Verfügung. Maorlo (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Marko, na schön, dann wandeln wir deine JPG in eine SVG um und gut is. Das JPG-Format ist für Grafiken ohnehin nicht geeignet. --Achim55 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Achim55, vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. Wir bitten darum, die Datei zu löschen und die Verlinkung zur Wikipedia-Seite zu entfernen. Ein entsprechendes Logo, welches Benutzt werden kann, haben wir bereits hochgeladen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Bischofskonferenz_Logo.jpg. Maorlo (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Marko, ich habe das Gefühl, wir reden aneinander vorbei. Ein Logo kann urheberrechtlich geschützt sein. Dieser Schutz betrifft dann das Logo an sich und ist völlig unabhänging vom Dateiformat, das für die Darstellung verwendet wird. Es ist nicht möglich, dass ein Logo als SVG geschützt ist und dasselbe Logo als JPG nicht geschützt ist. --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Achim, vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht! Das Logo der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die Datei kann im hochgeladenen JPG-Format, welches unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Bischofskonferenz_Logo.jpg zu finden ist, für die Wikipedia-Seite verwendet werden. Wir bitten aber darum, dass das Logo nicht in einer hochauflösenden Vektorgrafik dargestellt wird. Die allgemeine Nutzung des Logos, vor allem im hochauslösenden Druckformat, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Einwilligung der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, die per Anfrage via pressestelle@dbk.de erteilt werden kann. Wir möchten damit sicherstellen, dass das Logo der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz in Übereinstimmung mit den geltenden Urheberrechtsbestimmungen verwendet wird. Es ist darüber hinaus nicht ersichtlich, wie der Benutzer "Welkend" die Datei erhalten hat. Bei der angegeben Quelle handelt es sich um ein Dokument, welches das Logo im SVG-Format nicht enthält. Wir bitten darum, dass die Datei entfernt wird und bedanken uns für Ihre Unterstützung. Maorlo (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Aha, jetzt kommen wir der Sache näher. Nun haben wir zwei Probleme:
- 1. Die hochgeladene o. g. JPG hat CC BY-SA 4.0 als Lizenz. Was das bedeutet, ist unter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de nachzulesen. Das bedeutet, dass a) jeder dieses Logo ohne Einschränkungen verwenden darf (auch kommerziell) und b) das Logo auch verändert werden darf (was natürlich auch die Umwandlung in ein anderes Dateiformat einschließt). Das ist aber vermutlich gar nicht das, was von der DBK beabsichtigt ist.
- 2. Ist es nicht unüblich, eine niedrig-auflösende Fassung einer geschützten Darstellung (siehe de:Fair Use) zur Illustration eines Artikels zur Verfügung zu stellen, aber das ist hier auf Wikimedia Commons leider nicht möglich. Auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia ist es jedoch zulässig.
- Insofern bleibt uns wohl nichts anderes übrig, als alle Fassungen des Logos zu löschen. Gruß, Achim55 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die schnelle Rückmeldung und die hilfreiche Einordnung. Dann wäre es gut, wenn alle Fassungen des Logos gelöscht werden. Muss dazu unter jedes Foto ein Antrag gestellt werden? 195.14.228.18 12:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Marko, das geht auch so, aber erst übermorgen, weil Löschdiskussionen von Dateien, die in Verwendung sind, 7 Tage offen bleiben. --Achim55 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die schnelle Rückmeldung und die hilfreiche Einordnung. Dann wäre es gut, wenn alle Fassungen des Logos gelöscht werden. Muss dazu unter jedes Foto ein Antrag gestellt werden? 195.14.228.18 12:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Achim, vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht! Das Logo der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die Datei kann im hochgeladenen JPG-Format, welches unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Bischofskonferenz_Logo.jpg zu finden ist, für die Wikipedia-Seite verwendet werden. Wir bitten aber darum, dass das Logo nicht in einer hochauflösenden Vektorgrafik dargestellt wird. Die allgemeine Nutzung des Logos, vor allem im hochauslösenden Druckformat, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Einwilligung der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, die per Anfrage via pressestelle@dbk.de erteilt werden kann. Wir möchten damit sicherstellen, dass das Logo der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz in Übereinstimmung mit den geltenden Urheberrechtsbestimmungen verwendet wird. Es ist darüber hinaus nicht ersichtlich, wie der Benutzer "Welkend" die Datei erhalten hat. Bei der angegeben Quelle handelt es sich um ein Dokument, welches das Logo im SVG-Format nicht enthält. Wir bitten darum, dass die Datei entfernt wird und bedanken uns für Ihre Unterstützung. Maorlo (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Marko, ich habe das Gefühl, wir reden aneinander vorbei. Ein Logo kann urheberrechtlich geschützt sein. Dieser Schutz betrifft dann das Logo an sich und ist völlig unabhänging vom Dateiformat, das für die Darstellung verwendet wird. Es ist nicht möglich, dass ein Logo als SVG geschützt ist und dasselbe Logo als JPG nicht geschützt ist. --Achim55 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Achim55, vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung. Wir bitten darum, die Datei zu löschen und die Verlinkung zur Wikipedia-Seite zu entfernen. Ein entsprechendes Logo, welches Benutzt werden kann, haben wir bereits hochgeladen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Bischofskonferenz_Logo.jpg. Maorlo (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete both: The German Bishops' Conference claims copyright and in my opinion it is not covered by PD-textlogo. Depicted is a stylized Crosier which cannot be ignored regarding TOO. --Achim55 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion; above TOO. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
© Hak Cipta 2022 - Jurusan Informatika UII - Yogyakarta https://informatics.uii.ac.id/profil/dosen_if/fathul-wahid/ 36.69.112.239 12:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Brief biography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
lower quality duplicate of File:Herb Swierczek.jpg Giltsbeach (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and redundant to File:POL COA Świerczek.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
https://www.max-douglas.com/ copyright Ivanbranco (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: On the internet in 2018 according to TinEye, Also, ad for a casino in the comment CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The thumbnail is all blurry. I've re-uploaded it to WikiMedia Commons and the problem seems to have been fixed. Thunderbird2013 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, superseded by File:Nimbus Sans Novus new.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The file was uploaded by mistake, is duplicate, is unnecessarily large (in *.png format), there is an identical file significantly smaller (in *.jpg format) Mojmir Churavy (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, redundant to File:Bohumil Nemecek 1897 1986 Radola Gajda 1892 1948.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Reason for cropping/bad framing doesn’t make any sense (but I’m a gentile atheist so what do I know) and in any case it’s kind of blurry Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Crop makes file COM:OOS. For OG uploader, please see COM:CENSORSHIP. A09 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Es tuerta? 186.106.135.116 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be copied from Instagram without evidence of permission. Marbletan (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and No license since 2023-04-10. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
© 2022. No es válido este año? 186.106.135.116 17:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no free license at source. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It is similar to other files Hemidah (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- e.g. to which ones? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/File:MSC Seaview Genova.jpg
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyright infringement Frartn (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Kept: why?. --Didym (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyright infringement 2A01:E11:5010:4650:F541:B95:6F8:8E59 11:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence of infringement, username matches EXIF. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright infrigement Frartn (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: already kept twice, we would really need a bit more explanation than just "copyright infringement" in this case which seems fine. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyright infringement 2A01:E11:5010:4650:DCA5:AB19:9258:9AD3 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Kept: Vandalism. IP blocked for 1 month. --Achim55 (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyright infringement Frartn (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
We have given you multiple chances to improve here and to provide evidence for your deletion request, but you blew them all. I will be reporting you and your IP address to the Wikimedia Commons admins for vandalism, false reporting, and block evasion. Angelgreat (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Kept: Vandalism. User:Frartn blocked for 2 weeks. --Achim55 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
delete this, please Frartn (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 20:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC) |
Net copyright violation. Where do you find your Admins? 181.43.7.29 18:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- One time uploader. Did you ask him to obtain OTRS permission? 181.43.7.29 19:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; credit in EXIF data not matching the uploader. Needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
material from https://www.senat.fr/senateur/signe_rene_pierre86053h.html is copyrigted Ske (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a simple design, it is not a simple geometric shape. Plus the metadata has a copyright notice. Frodar (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- No coincido.--Ulisesval (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The photographer is mentioned in the file's details. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. It's highly unlikely that a 1970s yearbook photo was published with a Creative Commons license. The file is described as a high school yearbook photo yet the author is given as Jennifer Carter, presumably a relative of the subject of the photo. Denniscabrams (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I believe this image is a COM:Derivative work - the background poster is copyrighted and is too extensive to qualify for COM:De minimis. MKFI (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Georgia ModriDirkac (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files found with Special:Search/WBC trophy
[edit]There is no FOP of artistic objects in Japan. While the photographs themselves are freely licensed, images of trophies are considered copyrighted.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with World baseball classic trophy. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- And also File:Torophy of WBC in miyazaki airport.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/World baseball classic trophy
[edit]Although these photographs are licensed freely on Flickr, they depict a copyrighted 3D object and there is no freedom of panorama in the United States.
- File:World Baseball Classic Trophy 3.0ver.jpg
- File:World Baseball Classic Trophy.jpg
- File:World Baseball Classic Trophy 2017.jpg
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with WBC trophy. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- And adding File:World Baseball Classic Trophy 2013.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Without permission from the billboard owner this may be a copyright violation as we do not have freedom of panorama in the United States EdJF (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @EdJF: perhaps you meant billboard artist or producer? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- May be a bad assumption on my part, but the billboard does not appear to be a standard commercial billboard, but rather one that was set up as a single use item, featuring McConnell; leading me to assume the billboard owner and artist were one in the same. But you're point is well taken and "billboard artist" or "billboard producer" is more accurate. EdJF (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:International Museum Day 2023
[edit]Derivative work of the official visual of the International Museum Day (copyrighted by ICOM), no permission under a free license
- File:Banner for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 02.png
- File:Social Media Header for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 01.png
- File:Story visual for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 09.jpg
- File:Story Visual Wikidata Contest for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 10.jpg
- File:Story WMCH MAP SERVICE for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 08.jpg
- File:Visual for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 05.jpg
- File:Visual GLAM digital for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 03.jpg
- File:Visual Wikidata Contest for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 06.jpg
- File:Visual WMCH MAP SERVICE for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 04.jpg
DCB (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan Ориенталист (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan Ориенталист (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this professional portrait photo of this singer and actress, the only upload by this user, is an "own work" as claimed. It's obviously from the same photo session as this press photo available at her agency (click on the thumbnail there for a large version). It is therefore quite likely not the uploader's own work and should be deleted per the precautionary principle. If it is indeed the uploader's own work, they should send a permission by e-mail using the COM:VRT process. Rosenzweig τ 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the assessment that this image is very likely not the work of the uploader. Marbletan (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing EXIF data. Many previous DR's by this uploader who doesn't seem to understand licensing.
- File:Raj Bhavan of Tripura.jpg
- File:Tripura-assembly.jpg
- File:DharmanagarTownhall.jpg
- File:DharmanagarRailway.jpg
- File:ShivaDharmanagar.jpg
- File:DharmanagarTownroad.jpg
- File:Kailashahar New Kali temple.jpg
- File:Durgapujapandel.jpg
- File:Manuriver.jpg
- File:Tirupati temple kls.jpg
- File:Viewofkls.jpg
- File:Unakotikalakshetra-01.jpg
- File:Picture of Many river.jpg
- File:RK.Institutions.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I confirm that all the images presented here have either been taken by myself or have been provided by others, with their explicit permission for me to upload. While some of these images may have been taken using a mobile device, I will make every effort to provide the missing data wherever possible.
- I regret any issues that may have arisen due to my previous uploads, and I take full responsibility for them. It is worth noting that all but the first two nominations in this list were selected by either myself or someone in my network. ( I am willing to consider deleting the first two nominations in the list, as I understand that they may not meet the necessary standards for upload on this platform, but the exceptions do not have any copyright violation )
- I understand that uploading content on this platform comes with a certain level of responsibility, and I am committed to ensuring that all future uploads adhere to the highest standards of quality and professionalism. I kindly request that my work not be deleted. I have put a lot of time and effort into creating these contributions and I believe that they have value to the community. Tojoroy20 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader says. "I confirm that all the images presented here have either been taken by myself or have been provided by others, with their explicit permission for me to upload." -- Yet he claimed that he was the photographer of all of these. We cannot keep images made by others without their written permission. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Each map is in a completely different style. Obviously not own works but COM:DW at most. Missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission.
- File:Goa-IN.jpg
- File:IN-LD.jpg
- File:Agartala area locator map.png
- File:MapofDharmanagar.jpg
- File:Map of Kailashahar.jpg
- File:KailashaharMap.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I confirm that all the maps presented here have been created solely by me, or inspired by some other sources. None of the images used in these maps have been sourced from any external websites. Some of the maps have been created with the assistance of OpenStreetMap, an open-source mapping platform. The specific file mentioned, 'Agartala,' is a combination map that has been entirely created by me, using an outline that is available in the public domain. Tojoroy20 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- These maps and images have taken a significant amount of time and effort to create, and I strongly believe that they should not be deleted on mere suspicion. I did not upload them for any personal gain, but rather to contribute to the community. I can confirm that these maps were not any copyright violation, and that they are entirely my own work. While I regret that I may have uploaded some non-copyrighted images in the past, those now deleted and apologize for any inconvenience caused.
- I understand that there may be concerns regarding the legitimacy of my uploads, but I assure you that these maps were created with no bad intentions or malicious motives. If these images were to be deleted or if I were to be blocked based on my uploads, it would undermine the hard work and motivation of another editor. I kindly request that my contributions should not be deleted and that these maps be given a fair chance to be recognized as the original and creative work that they are. Tojoroy20 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I know that my comments may not be given any importance, and in the end all my efforts will be deleted. With maybe some errors/faults, I tried to create something. However, at the end, with all my time and effort deleted, I'm also leaving Wikipedia/Commons - maybe I don't belong here. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Metamorforme42 as no permission (No permission since)
COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- File is credited as "Bénévole" = "Volunteer" but license is stated as CC-BY-SA 4.0. At least paternity is strangely stated, {{Trademark}} is missing too. If COM:TOO, the {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} should be replaced by {{PD-textlogo}}. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license, TOO questionable. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
No evidence that this work of an unknown photographer can be considered as public domain. 188.123.231.5 12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Too little data, to closing admin, please also check for File:Xi Jinping, Xi Yuanping and Xi Zhongxun in 1958.jpg, which was a doubled file (per Norsk biographical dictionary). A09 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Above threshold of originality Trade (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Listed at Wikipedia as a fair use file. The photograph was definitely taken before 1928 but we have no information on when this was published. Given that the subject was born in 1869, this seems like it was probably taken after 1902. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Even if made public after 1928 it would still need to have registered for a copyright and then renew that copyright up until 1964. No image of this person appears in the copyright database. --RAN (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, this probably was published before 1964 so I think we can keep this. Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1923 British postcard. We don't know what the back looks like (where a credit might be found). It could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I believe we have several from this same series, there is no credited photographer on the reverse side. --RAN (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, can you elaborate on this further? If this is part of a series that Commons already has had parts of and they don't credit a photographer, then it would be PD-UK-unknown. It's obviously PD in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have tried emailing the site provider, but I believe the images hosted on the site are available to the public. While slightly unclear, the site does say that uploaded images are 'publically available' which I have taken as being suitable for public use outside of commercial usage, until further notice from the website. SamuraiArmada (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Commercial use has to be allowed for a file to be on Commons. If the postcard is public domain, then there's no issue with hosting it here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay so I have been doing some further research into the origin of the postcard. Although I can't find the origin of this particular postcard, there is a very similar one that features the same building with a similar font in the corner. The reverse of the postcard (found here: https://picturestocktonarchive.com/2002/05/19/holy-trinity-church-seen-through-the-graveyard/) is also shown, but as --RAN said there seems to be no credit or info pertaining to the copyright. Another thing to note is that this exact image was also used on the Stockton government, perhaps signifying the work is within the public domain (found here: https://heritage.stockton.gov.uk/media/2401/holy-trinity.jpg?mode=crop&width=500&height=350)
- Further more, I have found a another similar postcard that could have been produced by the same company, but the font is different and is of a different location (found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/erarchives/25254079995/in/photostream/). On this website, the archive who uploaded the image described the copyright as having 'No known copyright restrictions' and they state in the description 'We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of Creative Commons'. However, as you know creative commons has multiple levels of copyright restrictions, and the images they have uploaded are of a different location, and the work itself is different.
- Overall, I believe the work is in the public domain, as there seems to be a large collection of similar postcards featuring nearby landmarks or even the church itself in a similar font. On these, there seems to be no credit for the creator or company who produced them. There is also the point that most websites seems to list similar postcards from about 1900 to 1925, which would mean the content is within the public domain in the UK. This is because for 'Anonymous or pseudonymous works (Works of unknown authorship)', the UK government states content falls into public domain after 'it is reasonable to assume that copyright has expired, or the author died over 70 years ago', and since these postcards were created at least 100 years ago, it is likely the item is within the public domain. SamuraiArmada (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long explanation. SamuraiArmada (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have no problems with lengthy explanations. I am definitely leaning towards Keep for this. Abzeronow (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have no problems with lengthy explanations. I am definitely leaning towards
- Sorry for the long explanation. SamuraiArmada (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Commercial use has to be allowed for a file to be on Commons. If the postcard is public domain, then there's no issue with hosting it here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; nominator now favors keep. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Metamorforme42 as Logo (https://theatredepassy.fr/ attribution is stated wrongly, licence is also stated wrongly ; COM:TO ?) Kadı Message 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: False claims, TOO uncertain, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
File taken from Instagram HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
File taken from Instagram HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also affected: File:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi portrait.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Not an own work. Copyright status unknown HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not under the license stated, in the website used as source. Also does not qualifies as a potential simple logo. Frodar (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- No se cuál es la licencia específica, que imagino puede corregirse sin problema sin la necesidad de eliminar el archivo. El club en su propia página pone a disposición su escudo para el uso de la gente, me extraña que no lo hayan visto. Copio textual lo que dice la página:
- "Se pone a disposición el pack con el “emblema oficial” del Club Atlético Huracán, el mismo contiene el globo en distintos formatos, disponibles para su uso, podes descargarlo desde el siguiente link:
- Pack Identidad Huracán
- Usando todos el mismo emblema forjamos la identidad del Globo, como también así fortalecemos a “Huracán” como Marca, entre todos hacemos a Huracán más grande ¡Sumate!" NehuenCasla PR (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Desconozco el uso de licencias y su aplicación pero el club en su web publica el pack y, no solo eso, promueve su uso por los "hinchas" y la "comunidad". No tiene sentido que lo quieran borrar, de seguro existe una licencia para aplicar en este caso si la de ahora no es la correcta Luzbelito96 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Story GLAM digital for the Wikimedia campaign from 4 to 18 May 2023 to support ICOM's annual International Museums Day on 18 May. 07.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of the official visual of the International Museum Day (copyrighted by ICOM), no permission under a free license DCB (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I confirm that I created this and the others visuals myself. It shall illustrate a part of the international Wikimedia Campaign to foster the International Museum Day of International Council of Museums (ICOM). The campaign is organised by Wikimedia CH (Lead), Wikimedia AT and Wikimedia DE. It runs from 4 to 18 May 2023 (project page, currently construction).
- About the creation process:
- I asked ICOM for the permission to use their IMD-Logo as one of several elements in different campaign visuals. They agreed and encouraged us by email do go ahead.
- On Canva, I drafted different visuals and asked ICOM for the permission to upload them on Wikimedia Commons. WMAT and WMDE had as well the opportunity to approve the visuals. As all partners were happy with the drafts, and with ICOM’s green light by email, I uploaded them on Commons. The file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Story_GLAM_digital_for_the_Wikimedia_campaign_from_4_to_18_May_2023_to_support_ICOM%27s_annual_International_Museums_Day_on_18_May._07.jpg is part of this collection.
- Conclusion:
- These images shall highlight a great Wikimedia initiative to increase the visibility of museums worldwide and enlarge the free knowledge about their cultural treasures. They shall attract interest of volunteers to contribute to this objective. In this spirit, they are aligned with the mission of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and all their sister projects.
- In my opinion, it would be a pity to delete this file and the other campaign visuals. It's on you to decide.
- Demande:
- The Wikidata Contest which was planned in the campaign cannot take place. It would be great if someone could delete the 2 visuals concerning the Wikidata Contest:
- - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Story_Visual_Wikidata_Contest_for_the_Wikimedia_campaign_from_4_to_18_May_2023_to_support_ICOM%27s_annual_International_Museums_Day_on_18_May._10.jpg
- - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Visual_Wikidata_Contest_for_the_Wikimedia_campaign_from_4_to_18_May_2023_to_support_ICOM%27s_annual_International_Museums_Day_on_18_May._06.jpg
- Best
- Kerstin Kerstin Sonnekalb (WMCH) (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023041310006875 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Small image, no EXIF data, only an assertion of ownership which is dubious Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by DCB as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: screenshot of copyrighted materials (part of ICOM's official visual): https://imd.icom.museum/international-museum-day-2023-to-focus-on-sustainability-and-wellbeing/
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Image used for official Wikimedia purposes, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- @King of Hearts: Wikimedia CH has taken contacts with ICOM, like happened in the past for other editions of the International Museum Day (for instance m:International_Museum_Day_2022), and ICOM agreed to use their official visual in Wikimedia projects and integrating Wikimedia logo as they partner and support this activity in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia CH has the mail exchange and the written consent. This is the story. I am not the person in charge of the images or in contact with ICOM. At that point I leave to others to followup with these requests of cancellation and I will setup the pages without these graphics like I did also in the past. They will be less efficient pages and less efficient campaign, but the images can be integrated everytime in case a positive decision will be taken. I don't reply to the requests of DCB as his proposals concern derivative work of this image. Kind regards --Ilario (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: @DCB: a quick update after some feedback with my colleague. She has send all mail sharing with ICOM to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. And it's correct, she is the creator of the visual she has uploaded. Kind regards. --Ilario (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Premeditated as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a logo of an organization and is protected by copyright. It is not simple geometric or text. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from the slideshow at https://www.slowthegamedown.com/billharrison.html. Unclear who took the photo, needs more detailed source info. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I had it sent to me by the owner of slowthegamedown. I'm still adding references and links to the page. I can find out who took the photo, but I'll delete it in the meantime SmalltimeOD (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @SmalltimeOD Thanks for your response. Please keep in mind that when you use the “self” tag, you’re claiming to be the copyright owner, usually the photographer or photo agency. You should not upload images if the owner has not forfeited their rights. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! SmalltimeOD (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @SmalltimeOD Thanks for your response. Please keep in mind that when you use the “self” tag, you’re claiming to be the copyright owner, usually the photographer or photo agency. You should not upload images if the owner has not forfeited their rights. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright status unknown HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
No proof that the YouTube user is an employee of the US Federal Government, questionable copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Youtube account terminated, so the source is no longer available. There was no license reveiw. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
A promotional image of an artist, photographer is Sakari Majantie. No indication that the image has ever been released under a free license. I believe this is not uploaders own work Nitraus (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Same problem with photos File:Johanna Pakonen 2.jpg and File:Johanna Pakonen promo.jpg too. --Htm (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this image is available in the United States If the copyright of this image still exists in the United States it should be deleted. Q28 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, this photograph was taken by Hou Bo (侯波), she died in 2017. This would mean that it would ascend to the public domain in (2017 + 50 + 1 =) 2068 assuming that the Life + 50 (fifty) years law isn't changed to 70 (seventy) in order to harmonise with other countries. So, for now it's safe to say that it could be undeleted in 2068, but by that time the undeleting user might check Mainland Chinese laws to see if they have changed and adjust the undeletion date accordingly. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- This photo was indeed taken by Hou Bo, but at the time she was employed as the section chief of the Number 3 Central Film Studio (see her entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women, Vol 2, by Lily Xiao and Hong Lee). As a photographer producing works for a news agency, her works during this time are covered by article 18 of the PRC's copyright law, which says that "authors of works for hire have the right of attribution and the remaining copyrights are enjoyed by the legal person or unincorporated organization". Therefore, looking to Article 23: "The works and copyrights (other than attribution rights) of legal persons or unincorporated organizations in works for hire are enjoyed by the legal persons or unincorporated organizations, and the protection period for their publication rights is 50 years, ending on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the creation of the work;" This photo entered public domain in China on January 1, 2000 (edit: this is the latest possible date. I don't know whether the photo was/could have been originally published in the public domain, but since it was an official photo, it could have been. Some digging should be done.).
- I think that the nomination was referring to the trickier question of whether the photo is also public domain in the US due to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. I will note that:
- "...files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion."
- SilverStar54 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, the more research I do into this photograph, the less sure I am that it was taken by Hou Bo. I've seen several Chinese sources, such as this one, attribute it to a photographer named Chen Zhengqing who was apparently well known in China but is seemingly unknown in English-language sources. I wonder if there are multiple photos with similar names. This article (which appears to be a repost of an article originally published by Xinhua News) attributes the photograph to Chen in the introduction but later refers to "The Founding Ceremony" (without a reference image) as the most precious photo of Hou Bo's life.
- I know very little about Chinese photography at this time, but it seems like mislabeling and misattribution were extremely common and sometimes even delibrate (See the article "The Challenging Archive: Studying Photographers of the Chinese Communist Party" by Gao Chu and Wang Shuo). Can someone find an authoritative source (such as Wu Qun's "History of Photography in China") on the topic? SilverStar54 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tag with "Not-PD-US-URAA|China". First, this photograph was a work for hire almost certainly published by a legal (not natural) person in 1949.[a] Second, the PRC did not have a copyright law from 1949-1990, meaning this photo (and any other photos from the time) could not have been published under any sort of free license because none existed.[b] Third, in 1990 China did adopt a copyright law. Under that law, all works owned by legal persons were protected 50 years from publication, applied retroactively. That means that this photograph became public domain in China on January 1st, 2000. However, because the URAA went into effect for China in 1996, this image is subject to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, and is not free in the United States. Because the image was uploaded before 2012, it should be tagged in accordance with Wikimedia policy. Moreover, following the example of the other images in en:Category:PD-China images with URAA-restored copyright, I think there is a strong rationale for Non-free fair use under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images Section 8, "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary". Many articles in English and Chinese have discussed the significance of this image as a symbol of the moment that the People's Republic was founded. I'm not sure what do to do with this image if that applies (are those images even on Wikimedia Commons, or only the English Wikipedia?). SilverStar54 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- ↑ The year of publication was disputed in this one case, but there was no positive evidence that publication was delayed. This source strongly suggests that it was indeed published in 1949. See also the similar photo visible in the top right corner of the first page here.
- ↑ The 1990 Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China by Yang, Yiping (1993) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8p06h5m1
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Uploader says it's his own work, but the title of the photo says it's not made by him as Buro Haug is a professional studio. I don't see any permission authorization in the description. Mondo (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- And furter research suggests that Menno Bouma, also mentioned in the title, is the actual photographer. Mondo (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Per talk page of the {{President.gov.ua}}, the Office of the President of Ukraine switched the license from CC-BY-4.0 to CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 on 4 October 2022, thus image published afterwards fails Common's licenseing requirement. Sorry for any inconvenience. A1Cafel (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Premeditated as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a logo of an organization and is protected by copyright. It is not simple geometric or text. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: weather-worn effect does not attract copyright. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, svg available Giltsbeach (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
color version available File:Topor (coat of arms).jpg Giltsbeach (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use. --Yann (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Lack of metadata suggests that the work is not own work by uploader. Bookish Worm (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
questionable to be own work, only uploud of the user, no metadata and very small resolution Lukas Beck (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Ce fichier représente l'ancien logo de la Maison Dormeuil. Le nouveau logo de la maison Dormeuil a été téléversé dans wikipédia pour remplacer celUi-là, il n'y a donc pas de raison de garder l'ancien logo sur la page Dormeuil. Victor31700 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This redirect does not seem to be based on common practice. Leyo 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Jonteemil (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
No evidence this was a real flag Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- There certainly were flags of the Reichskolonialbund without the swastika. File:Reichskolonialbund.jpg and this poster strongly imply that one with the swastika also existed. I would recommend further research into the matter. Fry1989 eh? 20:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is true that propaganda material such as the 1940 postcard and the lapel pins show the flag with a swastika on top. Nevertheless, all of the photographic evidence of flags being used by the Reichskolonialbund do not have the swastika. This can be seen in rally photos, meeting photos (another one), and even uniform insignias. An attempt should be made to contact a reliable source such as museum to find a primary source on the flag. Germenfer (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use. --Yann (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Logo from an event CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Appears to be above the ToO. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo was available before upload at usaid.gov, but was credited there to Joni Byker/Samaritan's Purse, so does not appear to be a USGov photo. It was then uploaded to Panoramio under a free license, but it appears that uploader was licensing laundering many photos related to Liberia (see Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices#Liberia,_Africa_2013). I don't think we have sufficient evidence for a license, despite the Panoramio check. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Very unlikely to be own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment According to Tineye, this image was found at directory.ucanews.com since 2014, predating the Commons image by 4 years. Felix QW (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Felix QW. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Not in Public Domain and not the right file uploaded CyrMatt (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly not a 1941 publication. At least Edouard Jeauneau only passed away in 2019, making his contribution to this book copyrighted in France until 2090. Felix QW (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
low quality, svg available Giltsbeach (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
low quality, svg available Giltsbeach (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Freigabeerklärung der Künstlerin Christa Reinhardt oder Rechtsnachfolger ihrer Kunstwerke fehlt. URV. --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Das Foto stellt nicht explizit ein Werk von Christa Reinhardt aus. (Was ich selbst als ehem. Vorstandsvorsitzender des Projekt.Dornröschen e.V. und Eigentümer/Besitzer der Bilder theoretisch tun könnte. Ja, dazu würde ich natürlich auch mit den Erben von Christa Reinhardt im Vorfeld Kontakt aufnehmen.) Das Foto dokumentiert einzig die im Artikel erwähnte von Edelgard Bulmahn ehedem initiierte Verkaufsausstellung zugunsten meines Vereines. Ich bitte insofern im Rücknahme der Deletion requests. Dank! ChristianBrune (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Auf dem Foto sind doch eindeutig zum Verkauf angebotene Werke von Christa Reinhardt dargestellt. Oder was ist auf den Bildern zu sehen? --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs VRT for artwork. No FOP for indoor works in Germany. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Offizieller Prospekt der Stadt Hannover, keine Freigabeerklärung des Grafikers für die Veröffentlichung. URV. --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Dieses Plakat habe ich in der Funktion des ausführenden Grafikers selbst allein vollumfänglich entworfen und produziert, UR also bei mir. Produziert als Gründungsmitglied und Bassist des Synagogalchores Hannover. Ich selbst muss mir keine Freigabeerklärung geben, denke ich. Sollte ich diesbzgl. beim Einstellen des JPG in die Commons etwas versehentlich übersehen haben zu dokumentieren, bitte ich um Entschuldigung. Ebenso bitte ich darum, die Delete Requests hier wieder zu entfernen. Dank! ChristianBrune (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Von wem ist das Foto des Kircheninneren? Selbst aufgenommen? --User:AxelHHAxelHH (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs VRT as it was published before upload to Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/twitter.com/rashtrapatibhvn/
[edit]From https://twitter.com/rashtrapatibhvn And "The twitter account https://twitter.com/rashtrapatibhvn does show a link to the website of the president. The copyright statement on the president website is not compatible with the GODL-India license template on Commons, as it states ‘’This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India, If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website can not be used in any misleading or objectionable context.’’ So copying work or making derivative works is not allowed it seems, from the website, but probably the same will be true for the twitter account. " (Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Kovind presented Nari Shakti Puraskar to Jodhaiya Bai Baiga.jpg)
- File:Prakash Jadhav's wife and mother receiving Kirti Chaka.jpg
- File:Wife of Sanjiv Kumar receiving Kirti Chakra.jpg
- File:Pooja Sharma and award (cropped).jpg
- File:Pooja Sharma (sq cropped).jpg
- File:Hari Gautam VC-BHU.jpg
- File:Dr Hari Gautam, Chancellor and Prof Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Vice Chancellor, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, call on President Kovind at Rashtrapati Bhavan.jpg
- File:Anita Gupta receiving the Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpg
- File:Niranjanaben Mukulbhai Kalarthi receives the Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpg
- File:Neerja Madhav receives Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Neena Gupta for her excellence in Mathematics.jpg
- File:Madhulika Ramteke Nari Shakti Puraskar (cropped).jpg
- File:Anita Gupta receiving the Nari Shakti Puraskar (cropped).jpg
- File:Droupadi Murmu met with Samia Suluhu during the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II.jpg
- File:Ram Nath Kovind greets Vietnamese PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc at Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2018.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Neena Gupta for her excellence in Mathematics (cropped).jpg
- File:Madhulika Ramteke Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpg
- File:Ram Nam Kovind congratulated the Prince of Wales on his election as the head of the Commonwealth.jpg
- File:Droupadi Murmu arrived in London for the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II (2).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Sathupati Prasanna Sree for preserving minority tribal languages. A Professor of Andhra University,.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Saylee Nandkishor Agavane for promoting Indian classical dance despite facing hardships due to Down syndrome.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Tage Rita Takhe for excellence in promoting women entrepreneurship and local product.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar and Ushaben Dineshbhai Vasava organic farmer (cropped).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Tiffany Brar (cropped).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Sruti Mohapatra for empowerment of Divyangjan. Known as the 'Crusader in a Wheelchair'.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Tiffany Brar for empowering visually impaired rural women.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Nasira Akhter for grassroot innovation in environmental conservation.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Saylee Nandkishor Agavane for promoting Indian classical dance (cropped).jpg
- File:Radhika Menon getting Nari Shakti Puraskar (sq cropped).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Shobha Gasti for remarkable efforts in empowerment of women and girls.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Ushaben Dineshbhai Vasava for her contribution in organic farming.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Kamal Kumbhar.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Thara Rangaswamy for creating awareness about mental disorders. She started a free mobile tele-psychiatry service in Tamil Nadu.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Neena Gupta 2022.jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Sathupati Prasanna Sree (cropped).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Nasira Akhter (cropped).jpg
- File:Nari Shakti Puraskar to Padma Yangchan for preserving and reviving the lost cuisine and hand-weaving techniques of Ladakh.jpg
.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}
A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The GODL-India is an act of parliament, which supersedes a mere (procedural/formal/old) text on the website. User4edits (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- If Indian government engages in copyfraud it should be at least clarified at file pages what is going on, not just GODL template plastered without explanation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: As far as most of the images mentioned here are concerned, all have been taken by in-house photographers of the Rashtrapati Bhavan, therefore I do not understand the point of copyfraud for photos relating to the in-house event of the Presidential residence. Thank you User4edits (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- If Indian government engages in copyfraud it should be at least clarified at file pages what is going on, not just GODL template plastered without explanation Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Yea! What they said. I'm not going to give any extra attention at this attempt to damage the project based on a random web comment. The law is the law. There are thousands more images you can list here, but the argument remains the same. Why??? Victuallers (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The law is the law." and it should be documented on images why given law actually applies. Delete in the current form. For example right now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nari_Shakti_Puraskar_to_Thara_Rangaswamy_for_creating_awareness_about_mental_disorders._She_started_a_free_mobile_tele-psychiatry_service_in_Tamil_Nadu.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nari_Shakti_Puraskar_to_Kamal_Kumbhar.jpg fail to explain why free license applies Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- If the rationale for deletion is "fail to explain why free license applies" please do specify what else is needed apart from the GODL-India template. In those two cases you mention, the picture is taken from the "Official Twitter account of Rashtrapati Bhavan" which "is run by the President’s Secretariat". So why would the GODL-India template which says it "applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India" and "all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information" not apply in this case? Mujinga (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- "The law is the law." and it should be documented on images why given law actually applies. Delete in the current form. For example right now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nari_Shakti_Puraskar_to_Thara_Rangaswamy_for_creating_awareness_about_mental_disorders._She_started_a_free_mobile_tele-psychiatry_service_in_Tamil_Nadu.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nari_Shakti_Puraskar_to_Kamal_Kumbhar.jpg fail to explain why free license applies Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per User4edits and Victuallers. I notice File:Arti Rana receives the Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpg was already deleted, and should be reinstated since the rationale "(Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): source – Twitter)" was incorrect. Mujinga (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - previous discussions which resulted in similar images being kept:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vanita Jagdeo Borade receives the Nari Shakti Puraskar.jpgand Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ms. Gauri Maulekhi - -NariShakti Puraskar 2017 Awardee (Individual).jpg Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- The first DR was ended up deleting the file. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I linked the wrong discussion and as you didn't state, the one I did link (now struck) was a no-brainer for deletion since it was a duplicate. No response on what three editors have now pointed out, namely that your rationale for deletion is wrong? Mujinga (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The first DR was ended up deleting the file. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural keep. As I have said before, I am uncomfortable with deciding what is and what isn't covered by the GODL in these individual DRs. There needs to be a consensus on the license talk page or village pump or somewhere that's more visible than a DR before we look at individual files. —holly {chat} 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stepro as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Imported media from https://archive.org/details/lmc-820230411-223620-lmc-8.4", that's why it's not "own work" by the uploader 𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤: The file was uploaded here less than one hour after upload to archive.org. Are you the same person as the IA user? —holly {chat} 18:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I first uploaded it to the Internet Archive so that I could upload it here via video2commons. So, yes. --𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 23:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)