Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/01/23
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
Files in Category:Dennis G. Jarvis
[edit]{{db-selfie|help=off}}
- File:Chile-03047 - Dennis (49073156297).jpg
- File:Chile-03048 - Dennis (49073157052).jpg
- File:Chile-03049 - Dennis (49072411383).jpg
- File:Chile-03177 - Me (49072461713).jpg
- File:Chile-03178 - Me (49072986061).jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, already deleted by colleague Fitindia. --Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dennis G. Jarvis 2
[edit]Selfie
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: procedural close; malformed deletion request with speedy delete tag within deletion discussion listing- No prejudging relisting, though I'd suggest doing so in smaller groups of related photos might be helpful. -Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dennis G. Jarvis 3
[edit]Selfies, Therme are many more but it was suggested that I nominate in smaller batches
- File:Austria-00289 - Angel with a Backpack -) (19121601173).jpg
- File:Austria-00291 - Me and a Friend (19735341782).jpg
- File:Austria-01091 - Me (21659862411).jpg
- File:Brazil-00612 - Make my Day.... (48966256578).jpg
- File:Bulgaria-0782 - Roman Theatre of Philippopolis (7432765676).jpg
- File:Cambodia-2621 (3614849268).jpg
- File:Germany-5484 - Me (12968649825).jpg Keep this one -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- File:Germany-5485 - Me a Proud Canadian (12969085284).jpg
- File:Germany-Me (29705801984).jpg
- File:Greece-0196 (2215882756).jpg * Keep per below comment
- File:Hungary-01970 - Me on Cruise (31702655463).jpg
- File:Israel-06896 - Dennis wearing a Kippah (34749652652).jpg
- File:Italy-1156 (5206897140).jpg
- File:Italy-1156 - A Unique Experience (5206352987).jpg
- File:Lisboa, Mosteiro dos Jerónimos, claustro (33).jpg Keep per Tuvalkin
- File:Maine 0066 - Pig Nose (52486392085).jpg
- File:Mexico-3512 (2214743170).jpg
- File:New Hampshire-Dennis ready to go....... --( (15120394998).jpg
- File:Spain-66 (2218867582).jpg
- File:Tunisia-3674 (7847633838).jpg
- File:Tunisia-3675 (7847638092).jpg Keep per below
- File:Tunisia-3676 (7847641568).jpg Keep per below
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Germany-5484 - Me (12968649825).jpg, in use in info box to illustrate the photographer. Nothing wrong with contributor of many in scope photos taking an occasional selfie, but massive numbers of such are not appropriate nor useful on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep File:Tunisia-3675 (7847638092).jpg and File:Tunisia-3676 (7847641568).jpg, ok photos of camel riding. Maybe File:Greece-0196 (2215882756).jpg, preparing gyro. Delete the rest. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Lisboa, Mosteiro dos Jerónimos, claustro (33).jpg, as it’s the only one among 133 in its category showing a human, which may be useful to indicate scale or to showcase the fact that this location is crawling with tourists. (About the other “selfies” in this D.R. I would say keep them all, too, but honestly I don’t have time to check them all. So Paradise Chronicle wins: keep it like this and soon Commons will have zero files — mission accomplished, I guess.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin I nominated them for deletion per this discussion, where a majority approved the deleting of selfies of non-contributors. This was just a tryout. First batch went good, that's why I nominated more the second time. Second was not so good, now this is a large discussion. I also saw that commons should not serve as a personal web host, but maybe I understood this wrong. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I think "non-contributors" and how it is interpreted may be part of the issue. Dennis G. Jarvis as far as I know is not a direct contributor to Commons. Jarvis is however a frequent traveler to notable monuments and historic sites, taking numerous photos, some of good quality, and sharing them on Flickr under free license. More than a few are in use on Wikimedia projects, and many others are on Commons as useful additional illustrations of important places. Is Jarvis a contributor here, or a non-contributor? We don't seem to have language for something like "contributor one degree distant". If Jarvis is a non-contributor, he also has never uploaded a selfie to Commons. His photos were uploaded to his personal Flickr. I therefore suggest in a case like this we should focus less on the term "non-contributor" than on simple question of COM:SCOPE in deciding deletion. Various Wikimedians have different tactics when copying images from Flickr. I generally take care when copying from Flickr to avoid uploading individual images which do not seem in scope or are potential derivative work problems. That takes a bit more work at the start. Other Wikimedians prefer the easier path of just bulk uploading full sets from Flickr without curation. The gratuitous selfies by Jarvis are part of what was swept up here by this tactic. I agree that most of these are not useful for Commons - again going back to Scope. The ones that are voted "keep" are so voted because users see in some scope usefulness - for example the two of Jarvis on a camel, I voted keep because they illustrate camel riding - not because they are selfies, but rather despite being selfies they also show something in Scope. My perspective. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin I nominated them for deletion per this discussion, where a majority approved the deleting of selfies of non-contributors. This was just a tryout. First batch went good, that's why I nominated more the second time. Second was not so good, now this is a large discussion. I also saw that commons should not serve as a personal web host, but maybe I understood this wrong. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept a few per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hoaxes, As of 18 November 1997, the People's Republic of China banned localities from making and using local flags and emblems. See Flags_of_cities_of_China#cite_note-1
Lemonaka (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Socking, DENY. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
All hoaxes, some flags are just terrible jokes, for example, File:Flag of Xinjiang.svg
- File:Flag of Yoro Department.svg
- File:Flag of Anhui.svg
- File:Flag of Gracias a Dios Department.svg
- File:Flag of Xinjiang.svg
- File:Flag of Jilin.svg
- File:Flag of Cortés Department.svg
- File:Flag of Intibuca Department.svg
- File:Flag of Liaoning.svg
- File:Flag of Chongqing.svg
- File:Flag of El Paraíso Department.svg
- File:Flag of Choluteca Department.svg
- File:Flag of Hebei.svg
- File:Flag of Qinghai.svg
- File:Flag of Shanghai.svg
- File:Flag of Tianjin.svg
- File:Flag of Jiangyin.svg
- File:Flag of Beijing.svg
- File:Flag of Bluffton, South Carolina.svg
- File:Flag of Mauldin, South Carolina (1994-2014).svg
- File:Flag of Malé (2019-2021).svg
- File:Flag of Mulakatholhu Atoll.svg
- File:Flag of Fuvahmulah.svg
- File:Flag of Malé.svg
- File:Flag of Addu.svg
- File:Flag of Meizhou.svg
- File:Flag of Wuhu.svg
- File:Flag of Jiangmen.svg
- File:Flag of Yixing.svg
- File:Flag of Liberty, South Carolina (1984-2005).svg
- File:Flag of Baldwyn, Mississippi (2014-2018).svg
- File:Flag of Baldwyn, Mississippi.svg
- File:Flag of Monastir Governorate.svg
- File:Flag of Brașov County, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Jendouba Governorate.svg
- File:Flag of Medenine Governorate.svg
- File:Flag of Medenine.svg
- File:Flag of Gabès Governorate.svg
- File:Flag of Abai Region.svg
- File:Flag of Craiova, Romalia.svg
- File:Flag of Ames, Iowa (2002-2006).svg
- File:Flag of Waukee, Iowa (1996-2015).svg
- File:Flag of Coralville, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Ames, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Altoona, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Charles City, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Bettendorf, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Waukee, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Mehedinți County, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Lamoni, Iowa.svg
- File:Flag of Lamoni, Iowa (2000-2018).svg
- File:Flag of Ilfov County, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Slatina, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Mureș County.svg
- File:Flag of Brad, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Giurgiu, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Caracal, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of North District, Hong Kong.svg
- File:Flag of Sai Kung District.svg
- File:Flag of Satu Mare, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Siliana.svg
- File:Flag of Slobozia, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Yuen Long District.png
- File:Flag of Lansing, Michigan (1956-1969).svg
- File:Flag of Orăștie, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Hunedoara, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Vulcan, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Petroșani, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Lupeni, Romania.svg
- File:Flag of Bloemfontein.svg
- File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg
- File:Flag of Johnston Atoll (Local).svg
- File:Flag of New York (Ppoposal).png
- File:Flag of New York (Ppoposal) 1.png
Lemonaka (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann More. Lemonaka (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: DENY. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
ভুল হওয়ার কারনে বিন উমার (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
ভুল হওয়ার কারনে বিন উমার (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:delete2|image=File:বিন উমার.jpg|reason={| align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="border:2px solid #777; background-color:#F1F1DE; font-size:x-small;" বিন উমার (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
this is an accidental copy of File:Tedder1943_detail.jpg CATFELLA (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
this is an accidental copy of File:Tedder1943.jpg CATFELLA (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploader says "I got it from the person depicted in the photo", does not have proper author permission. Ђидо (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Author will provide the permission ASAP. Paramparcha (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- The author of the photo is a person depicted on the photo and he will provide the permission for usage. Therefore, the photo should not be deleted, as the author needs a time to send his permission. Paramparcha (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, random penis snapshot. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; on band's website a year before uploader's claimed creation date; this copy via FaceBook per metadata. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Strange US PD claim - I don't think this is PD as claimed Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete it already. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader concurs with deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Google Map is used as a base map - Google Map is copyrighted Aotearoa (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, CV. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
hnjjdurhfuidjftuyh7tyjrieojrityh86 164.83.64.99 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by school IP. --Achim55 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Licensing, Commons only accepts files that are explicitly freely licensed or in the public domain. The restrictions the uploader has placed in the file description, " ***WARNING*** RESTRICTED USAGE --- - PERMISSION NEEDED FOR EACH USE" and "Permission required for reuse", are therefore incompatible with this file being hosted on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I shot This image of Claire Fagin on an assignment for the New York Times. I have the right to use it and upload it to Wikipedia, and I updated the description accordingly. BillCramer (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update! Marbletan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: Since the re-use restrictions have been removed, I think the issue is resolved. Marbletan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
"Warning: Restricted..." - see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This was addressed by the uploader yesterday; see above. Omphalographer (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I uploaded a new image where I added metadata for the photo. Please check if everything is okay now. Thanks! BillCramer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Photographs of photographs in Category:Guards Fest 2024
[edit]- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479476303).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479324036).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479476458).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479477438).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479474548).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53479636704).jpg
- File:Guards Fest 2024 (53478419797).jpg
These are photographs of photographs mistakenly included in a mass upload and I can't claim to know the copyright status of the underlying works. Out of an abundance of caution, I would ask that they be deleted. --Denniscabrams (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=407833018478776&id=100077562422722 ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
source: https://www.williamchambers.com/Womens-Portraits.html ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Not in use any more Vineet kakkad (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; user talk page with no content other than welcome message. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
advertisement. https://cn.technave.com/2022/11/29/%E7%A5%9E%E4%BC%BCswitch%EF%BC%81onexplayer-2%E6%B8%B8%E6%88%8F%E6%8E%8C%E6%9C%BA%E6%B8%B2%E6%9F%93%E5%9B%BE%E6%9B%9D%E5%85%89%EF%BC%9A%E5%8F%AF%E6%8B%86%E5%8D%B8%E6%89%8B%E6%9F%84%EF%BC%8C%E8%BF%98/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CV. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
social media photo. https://observers.france24.com/ar/20171208-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%B7%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88 ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, "Source molto frequente su google". --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This image is copyright by Nintendo. Remove this right now or Shigero Miyamoto will shove a giant 3d butt plug up your ass 2607:FB91:8E13:153D:B9EB:5C1C:351F:53DA 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism on wheels. --Achim55 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Foto: © Fabrizio Fenucci https://thrillernord.it/intervista-intervista-alle-sorelle-martignoni/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Acrylique sur toile du peintre Charles Szymkowicz qui représente le portrait de Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk).jpg
[edit]Œuvre d'une peintre toujours en vie, droit de panorama non applicable dans une collection privée. Être propriétaire d'une œuvre ne donne aucun droit sur son image. H2O(talk) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No reason why claimed license "PD-US" would apply to work of a living Belgian painter. Needs explicit permission from the artist to free license. (If artist authorizing a specific free license can be confirmed via COM:VRT, file can be undeleted.) --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
ミスで投稿してしまったため Omachi07 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G1. --Leonidlednev (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Minecraft screenshot Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: did reverse image search (sorry I should have done that before listing); image on line 2 years before uploader's claimed date of creation, yoinked image, no authority to license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since). Uploader can release works; see ticket:2022120310002581 and User talk:AtlasANE#File:Anthro New England Logo 2022.png. SWinxy (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ticket:2024012310008911 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 17:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Diese Datei beinhaltet Fehler. Korrekt ist die Datei https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A4rklin_Allstrommotor_mit_zwei_Feldspulen_und_Fernumschalter_U_498,_1935.png . Beide Dateien sind von mir (Bourbaki 2021). / This file contains errors. The correct file is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A4rklin_Allstrommotor_mit_zwei_Feldspulen_und_Fernumschalter_U_498,_1935.png . Both files are from me (Bourbaki 2021). Bourbaki 2021 (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
. Z W. 188.172.110.80 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Suppression Nicolaas131313 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Lo siento mucho. 186.172.79.177 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:NUDE LevandeMänniska (talk), 23:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, low quality photo of common object. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Own work 186.172.22.9 00:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, comes from 1915, easily old enough to be PD in germany. No valid reason for deletion.
- Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Owenxubuzane (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM; promotional images by likely company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, self promotional/personal logos; no use, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ColonelCrypto (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, self-promotional image, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Foltopoulos (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by nonnotable youtuber, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, self promotional logos; out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CandiceCandice (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by site, no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: g10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Violence ,harassment and discrimination ,pornography Kim sung boo (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Photo of women modeling nude. No violence, no harassment, no discrimination, no pornography. Inappropriate listing with false claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Photo of a copyrighted poster. Whpq (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G7-speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I made this crop with a bad name Leonprimer (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dangeltunesentertainment (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work, profesional photos without EXIF. The user uploaded other clear copyvios of Katharina Boger (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc)
- File:Katharina Boger studio.jpg
- File:Katharina Boger.jpg
- File:Katharina Boger 2.jpg
- File:Katharina Boger 1.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Studio image found at https://voyagela.com/interview/rising-stars-meet-katharina-boger-of-hollywood/]. 1 and 2 appear to be from Facebook [1], [2]. Absent VRT permissions, these should all be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1)--in addition to the above, File:Katharina Boger 1.jpg and File:Katharina Boger 2.jpg are credited Mustafa Inan here (indeed, uploader is demonstrably operating under a profound misapprehension ("the copyright is with me because I am in it myself")). --Эlcobbola talk 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YnTKCS8QnA SVTV: РУССКИЙ ПОГРОМ | Егор Просвирнин ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Kallerna. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Photograph: Dorset police/PA ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Image: PA ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
photo: PA ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kiranravi92 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promotional images uploaded by stated company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ehab AbdAlghafar (talk · contribs)
[edit]appears to be user's homework; out of scope (and no usage)
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant Vineet kakkad (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Not of use irrelevant Vineet kakkad (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Support deletion as unused personal photo. Note to @Vineet kakkad: - do not remove image description while deletion request is pending; listing once is enough. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please delete this image it is of no use and it is uploaded by mistake by me. Vineet kakkad (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
low quality selfie ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, SD F10 would also have worked. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: film poster CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
fictional flag Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nigeria's FOP was revoked since March 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nigeria's FOP was revoked since March 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this the reupload of file deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hassan II Moschee au 20111013 01.jpg, considering the same claimed date and uploader? In any case, not acceptable to host this mosque here as the architectural copyright is still existing and Morocco does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque for prior deletions of hundreds of images of this unfree mosque. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation of architectural copyright. The author, Michel Pinseau, died in 1999, so his work is not yet in public domain. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque for hundreds of deleted image files. Morocco does not permit commercial freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Part of Commons:UAE in Lens Competition contest, but the contest should not be a passport to violate copyrights of architects and sculptors of landmarks of UAE. The depicted subject is an interior architecture of Sheikh Zayed Mosque (©️2007 architect Yousef Abdelki). As UAE does not allow Freedom of Panorama, this image is a violation to architect's copyright. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a photo of a photo, taken with a cell phone in India (close to Mumbai per the coordinates), with the claim of "own work" from 2021 and captioned "A rare feat during 1936 Berlin Olympics". That's it, no proper source, no date, no original photographer, no explanation who the person we see is. With all that missing, we cannot determine the photo's copyright status or if it is in project scope. The file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Amo-amo demais essas notas que os vendedores da livraria gay Les Mots à La Bouche (27582955183).jpg
[edit]Two issues with this file. 1.) Possible DW issues with the book covers. 2.) Flickr metadata says the original source of this photo is Facebook. Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Claimed license not seen at source; archived link: [3]; front page "All Pages of this Web Site Copyright © 2002-2009. All Rights Reserved." Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Claimed license not seen at source; archived link: [4]; front page "All Pages of this Web Site Copyright © 2002-2009. All Rights Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Claimed license not seen at given source site; archived link [5] "© 2009 Castek, Inc./ Transpo Industries Inc.} -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca-Settat
[edit]Repeat uploads of interior architecture and architectural elements of unfree building in Casablanca, where commercial FoP is prohibited. See also the prior deletions of the same Flickr imports at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque#Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 14.
- File:Morocco-34 (2218998688).jpg
- File:Morocco-35 (2218205519).jpg
- File:Morocco-36 (2218998874).jpg
- File:Morocco-37 (2218998948).jpg
- File:Morocco-38 (2218999028).jpg
- File:Morocco-39 (2218205905).jpg
- File:Morocco-40 (2218206003).jpg
- File:Morocco-41 (2219029926).jpg
- File:Morocco-42 (2218236891).jpg
- File:Morocco-44 (2219030202).jpg
- File:Morocco-45 (2219030298).jpg
- File:Morocco-46 (2219000052).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Holger Uwe Schmitt (talk · contribs)
[edit]More violations to architectural copyrights. Morocco does not allow commercial Freedom of Panorama. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque for deletions of hundreds of images of this unfree work of architecture.
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 01.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 02.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 03.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 04.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 05.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 06.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 07.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 08.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 09.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 10.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 11.jpg
- File:"Ein der größten Moscheen der Welt". 12.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: This flag is AI-generated and entirely fictional Belbury (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nonsensical AI image of London with the London Eye on the wrong side and section of the river, Westminster Bridge narrowed and joining the bank in the wrong place, a bus floating down the river, etc etc. Belbury (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is a nonsensical AI image but that is what it shows, it shows the current state of AI imagery and that it frequently makes obvious errors and that its probably not a great idea to rely on AI imagery for accuracy Oxyman (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, though, because we don't know when it was generated, or what AI software was used, or even what the prompt was - maybe the user asked for a picture of the London Eye attached to the Houses of Parliament while a bus floated under a pedestrianised Westminster Bridge. Belbury (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If the user asked for a bus floated under Westminster Bridge the AI still got it wrong as that bus wouldn't fit under the bridge Oxyman (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't, though, because we don't know when it was generated, or what AI software was used, or even what the prompt was - maybe the user asked for a picture of the London Eye attached to the Houses of Parliament while a bus floated under a pedestrianised Westminster Bridge. Belbury (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Smoothly rendered but very inaccurate images of London is not a useful topic. OOS -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There is, unfortunately, no lack of unrealistic AI-generated images. That they could in principle be used to illustrate that AI-generated images are unrealistic is not an argument for us to keep every one of them that gets uploaded. Omphalographer (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lots of misgeneration issues and, to address Oxyman's point, there are better images (for example including prompt) to illustrate how AI tools at some point in time got/get specific things wrong. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DedopinWebSAS (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no use, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 14:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarl pcfix (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM; promotional images uploaded by company rep - no use, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Not educationally useful, and of poor quality. Used only on a userpage for a user whose only use of their account is four edits in 2021, three of which were to userspace and one unconstructive one to mainspace. QuietCicada (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nominator. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 03:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images for game with dubious license; out of scope
- File:ConceptMMO.jpg
- File:Ct-blog.jpg
- File:Ct high quality.jpg
- File:Crypto citizen.jpg
- File:Crypto Citizen.jpg
Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, grabbed from Facebook per FBMD metadata Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Can be used for a new BSicon. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope, for selfpromo. Taichi (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
out of scope: self-promo Enyavar (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep; no usage, not in scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Vaginanena.jpg 2806:102E:12:59D3:35B2:F0DE:CDCC:B 01:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Vagnena3.jpg 2806:102E:12:59D3:35B2:F0DE:CDCC:B 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Dildos o Consoladores Nena.jpg 2806:102E:12:59D3:35B2:F0DE:CDCC:B 01:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Esta fotos se esta utilizando bajo un alias ajeno a la persona titular, ya que el mismo se presento denuncia penal por pornografia de venganza en contra de mi expareja, bajo averiguacion previa 3048/2021 en ciudad guzman jalisco, cualquier dato que se me requiera se los brindo con gusto. 2806:102E:12:4104:6C1C:2F38:461:B413 22:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, dubious claim of revenge pornography as this could theoretically be claimed of any pornographic photograph or any nude photographs depicting human male or female genitalia. Why I am suspicious is because of the fact that it took around a decade since upload for this request to be made. While I'm not familiar with Mexican family law I don't think that photographs of people that cannot be identified are admissible in court, so there exists the possibility that the above is trolling. Likewise, this photograph doesn't even include any people. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Esta foto nunca fue autorizada por mi persona, misma foto fue subida por mi expareja para desprestigiarme y quedarse con la patria potestad de mis hijos, por lo que se presentó denuncia penal por ley Olimpia y pornografía de venganza en Ciudad Guzmán Jalisco, bajo averiguación previa 3048/2021, dentro de la misma se me otorgaron Medidas de protección otorgadas por la fiscalia del Estado de Jalisco. Por lo que solicito sea Elimina. 2806:261:490:8DBA:4960:4FE9:AD66:D5F3 23:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid reason for deletion, kept twice previously, including with same argument earlier this month. No person is seen in image. Same or similar block of text have been placed by anons to argue for deletion for sexual or nudity related photos by multiple different photographers taken decades apart; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cum shot on butt.jpg for some more details. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Esta foto nunca fue autorizada por mi persona, misma foto fue subida por mi expareja para desprestigiarme y quedarse con la patria potestad de mis hijos, por lo que se presentó denuncia penal por ley Olimpia y pornografía de venganza en Ciudad Guzmán Jalisco, bajo averiguación previa 3048/2021, dentro de la misma se me otorgaron Medidas de protección otorgadas por la fiscalia del Estado de Jalisco. Por lo que solicito sea Elimina. 2806:261:490:8719:A59A:55FE:92CA:BB91 12:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and block OP, as he has been creating many DRs about various images from different photographers claiming they're from him. Commons is not censored. PaterMcFly (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per previous, no support for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: From Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep What is prominent in the photo is the surrounding landscape and the photographer reflected over the memorial, and the memorial itself is mixed in among all that. This photo can't be realistically used to commercially reproduce the memorial, so it's difficult to see where the copyvio is. Darwin Ahoy! 11:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (Modern artists generally maintain the copyright to their works. "Fair use" derivative works of copyrighted art not allowed on Commons.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Just to clarify, as I seem to have been misunderstood, the argument was COM:De Minimis, not fairuse. Which I think may be the case there, BTW, but unfortunately it was deleted too quickly to allow for a proper evaluation by others. Anyway...-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not certain how this vaguely identified image is useful for Commons. If there is something that can be done to improve description, then maybe — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It is a photo of the Milky Way but we have much better images of the same motif in Commons. This is blurry. --C messier (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope LevandeMänniska (talk), 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use outside sandbox Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no reference to an authoritative source. The contradiction with the totality of all historical and geographical data indicates a typical example of ethnohistorical myth-making (folk-history)/ Oc-pecypc (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE - the validity of the information is something that local projects need to decide. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-photographs should not be in JPG. Replaced with File:EDITPRESS.png. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- ok, we put a png file Marketing Editpress (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No sources stated. Also clearly trying to create the illusion of a Tajik majority with the red coloring (why excluding Pashtuns when they are an Iranian group as well?), while undermining the Pashtun majority with contradicting claims, especially in the southwest where Balochs only have a relative majority in Helmand in Nimruz, and in the north, where Nuristanis make up >99% of the population in Nuristan, amongst many other wrong assumptions.--SdHb (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work. https://www.ilfaroonline.it/2021/05/17/da-luna-rossa-al-trofeo-carpaneda-sibello-riceve-le-chiavi-di-alassio/415393/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David S. Soriano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal artworks by uploader. Commons has a specific scope and is not a free webhosting service. Some artworks are also AI generated, which has its own copyright issues, as they are derivative works of numerous other works.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- These uploads have educational value and a number have been downloaded and used by viewers. Pattern recognition on these uploads will indicate they are quite original but certainly not ex anhilio, as only Cezanne and a few others can claim.
- I used AI to generate crude drawings as a starting point and 95-99& of the creative work was done by me.
- Growing numbers of artists are utilizing AI/ machine -learning, just as surgeons utilize robotics.
- Most of these digital contributions are currently being painted , by me, and the uploads are for the benefit of viewers.
- This is now the 2022 version of Fauvism, Impressionism and Post- Impressionism. David S. Soriano (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I neglected to mention that one watercolor was completed by me and uploaded for our users. D.S. David S. Soriano (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- One of my digital artwork designs ( all original) was recently used in a scientific paper on 'ibogaine' and 'depression'.
- [6]https://bigthink.com/health/ibogaine-treatment/
- I upload my work for allowing others to consider utilizing them for the common social good. David S. Soriano (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I neglected to mention that one watercolor was completed by me and uploaded for our users. D.S. David S. Soriano (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep You could probably argue images like File:Crayon Block (David Soriano).jpg are OOS and I'm sure others are. That said a good partition, maybe half, are fine. I dont' feel like going through or listing every single file that might or might not be in scope though. So my suggest would be that the nominator organizes them based on theme or something and re-nominates the that are clearly (at least close to it) OOS (it's not a bright line BTW). That said, there's no guideline that "user created artwork" is automatically OOS. As David S. Soriano showed in their last comment it can serve a purpose sometimes. I still think smaller batches of nominations would be worth doing though. We just impossible to evaluate every image on it's own merits when there's this many in a single nomination. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep most of these. Many of these artworks have potential educational uses. File:The Tugboat.png is a fairly good-quality illustration of a tugboat, and Category:Tugboats in art has only fifty items in it. File:The Female Cave Artist.png is one of the very few pictures on Commons showing stone-age cave painters at work. Delete File:Tomatoes Or Grapes?.jpg, as it appears to be based on the copyrighted new Sun-Maid logo rather than the out-of-copyright original one. Chiolite (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: without prejudice to re-nomination per Adamant. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David S. Soriano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal art by a non notable artist, small size / low quality, out of scope.
Yann (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, Omphalographer, J. M. Pearson, Belbury, HyperGaruda, Emu, and RodRabelo7: --Trade (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Whym: --Trade (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope; if we ever need something like any of these, then presumably they can be generated more or less on demand. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete weird useless imagery, oos Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Emu (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete; not much else to add, but here is a link to a related deletion request for posterity. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful--Trade (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Jmabel rationale regarding AI-generated media (especially low-quality ones) is rather good: if we ever need something like any of these, then presumably they can be generated more or less on demand. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unanimous consensus. User didn't respond, and is blocked for a month. --Yann (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David S. Soriano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per previous discussions of this user's content, these are further out-of-COM:SCOPE personal digital artworks, some of them AI generated/assisted. None are in use. (The user is now under an indefinite block for continuing to upload this kind of thing.)
- File:Panpsychism Perspective.png
- File:Woman In Profile.png
- File:Cubism Perspective II.png
- File:Lab Scene.png
- File:Art Deco 2023.png
- File:The Lonely Dragon Tree.png
- File:Electricity & Powers That Be.png
- File:Electricity Is Alive.png
- File:The Two Faces.png
- File:Fire In Sky.png
- File:Dragon Tree.png
Belbury (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unusably low quality, misgeneration issues, and no realistic usefulness. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal artwork with no educational use case, regardless of whether it's AI-generated or not. Images like File:Cubism Perspective II.png in particular are not useful as illustrations of the Cubist art movement, as artwork from that period is largely in the public domain, and this modern piece barely even resembles Cubist art. Omphalographer (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Pokémon, Detective Pikachu film advert on a Malpas Road bus shelter, Newport - geograph.org.uk - 6129539.jpg
[edit]I highly doubt this would qualify as COM:De Minimis. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Agreed. --bjh21 (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio of the office. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no use, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:PCon.planner Logo.png, as it is in use and below COM:TOO Germany. Delete File:Screenshot pCon.planner.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: and kept one per User:IronGargoyle. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a duplicate with no usages. The other version, File:Huston Smith in 2005.jpg, has all the usages and was uploaded by the actual photographer, Ellis408. WikiPedant (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work. Original source not given, no evidence that it's free. Paul_012 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted model of the stadium. fails COM:DW A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
personal logo of noncontributor; out of scope, F10 may apply Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company (blocked for spam), no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Cropped screenshot of a promotional image featuring non-logo elements which are not covered by PD-textlogo. Incorrect licensing. DetriaSkies (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Ministro defende engajamento da sociedade na ampliação dos investimentos em cultura (40957340385).jpg
[edit]Derivative work of a copyrighted object A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ylva Johansson, official portrait 2019.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by nonnotable youtuber, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
essay; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This flag has nothing in common with the official symbols of the military unit. It is just a copy of an unprofessionally created souvenir flag based on the national tricolor with the addition of the national emblem and the misspelled word “osSetia”, the appearance of which can be traced back to the late 2000s. Oc-pecypc (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No sensible use. Dosseman (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep No valid deletion reason. Added 2 specific categories. Unused ≠ out of scope Юрий Д.К 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Юрий Д.К. - although it is close to a personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No sensible use. Dosseman (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep No valid deletion reason. Added 2 specific categories. Unused ≠ out of scope Юрий Д.К 11:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, F1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, F1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, F1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, F1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Albermg0617 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Más Pais never got more than 2 seats. Fake diagram, misleading data, out of project scope
Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution and jpeg quality, EXIF data indicate this is from facebook, possible copyvio, delete per COM:PCP. C messier (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution, EXIF data indicate this is from facebook, possible copyvio, delete per COM:PCP. C messier (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Horaglanis populi live.jpg . Falsely claimed as own work. 0x0a (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DINHNHAT1997 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by company, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use outside userpage Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leon coredao (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, several promo images uploaded by company rep, no use
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo images uploaded by company rep, no usage
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by orrg, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company user blocked for spam; no usage Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Oladoyinbov (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image for nonnotable chatbot, no usage and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional logo uploaded by nonnotable user for their site, no usage and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep (same initials), no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CryptoEmergency (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by company, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use outside sandbox Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prashant.chauhan10 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, several promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by seeming company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TecnoCall LLC (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use
Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Useless logo/map mashup Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The use of the city's flag in this diagram makes it practically unreadable. Not every map needs to have a flag overlaid on it. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company rep (see userpage), no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work https://www.instagram.com/misesdemundo/p/C0_3wwIuupx/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
credit: Israel Swimming Association https://www.israelhayom.co.il/sport/other-sports/article/12121782 ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
screenshot source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawL3ihQanc Phulkopir Singara Recipe | আলু ফুলকপি ও মটর দিয়ে সিঙ্গারা |How to Make Bengali Aloo Gobi Samosa ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
you see almost nothing Verloren16 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
De spreker is bijna onzichtbaar Verloren16 (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
there are new articles Verloren16 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: text only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8VHoKjRRTc ঘরে থাকা উপকরণ দিয়ে নরম রসালো মালপোয়া বানিয়ে ফেলুন সহজেই - Malpua Recipe Bengali | Shampa's Kitchen ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
news photo, unlikely to be own work ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a photo of photo in a computer screen. The info about the creator of the original photo need to be known to determine the copyright status. C messier (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a photo of photo in a computer screen. The info about the creator of the original photo need to be known to determine the copyright status. C messier (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Procès de Jeanne d'Arc 1962 screenshot https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059616/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ("Thingy"; "Description English: i dont know") -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Historical photo, likely to be a derivative work, thus a proper source and license is needed A1Cafel (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
very bad, out of focus web photo ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Very bad quality photo, unused, uncategorized. Uploader description seems contradictory, saying it is from 2014 and 2024. Delete unless it is shown to have value compensating for the very low quality and is legitimately free licensed by the original photographer. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
very bad, out of focus web photo ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
very bad, out of focus web photo ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
very bad, out of focus web photo ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
OOS fictional flag, unused Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’m sorry but I do not agree. Fictional flags have been uploaded to Wikimedia for years. There’s literally categories for them: Category:Flags of fictional countries or Category:SVG flags of fictional countries
- Fictional flags are permitted in Wikimedia as long as they’re not used on Wikipedia articles… that’s why it’s unused. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment See COM:SCOPE. Same rule applies to fictional flags as anything else - "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." There are other places online for personal fiction and playing alternative history games - Commons is not such a place. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sunsetophile (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvio: Album cover
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company rep, no usage outside of sandbox; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Canada Flowers is a National flowery delivery service, can we get a wiki entry for them. 205.196.34.66 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
چون عکس اصلی با لوگو نیست Soheilchehri (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hanooz 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
به دلیل تکرار بودن عکس Soheilchehri (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Google Translate: Due to the repetition of the photo. Repetition/duplication of what photo? And in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
به دلیل ناقصی و تکرار بودن صفحه Soheilchehri (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @Soheilchehri: Please refrain from repeatedly nominating this file for deletion for no valid reason. If you wish to nominate it again, please explain clearly why it should be deleted, based on the deletion policy. Thank you. --Ahmadtalk 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
حذف و کراپ غیر قانونی لوگو عکاس Soheilchehri (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Google Translate: "Remove and crop illegal photographer logo". I see no logo or any other reason for deletion. FOP restrictions only apply to copyrighted works. And in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
به چند دلیل : Soheilchehri (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, Google translation of the nomination from Persian is 'for some reasons', so no valid reason has been given for deletion. The nominator has previously nominated this file for deletion four times, with the file being kept each time. The nominator's issue is unclear, but it may relate to the absence of a copyright watermark in this image: the nominator is the uploader, and their other uploads have a copyright watermark. This would not be a valid reason for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. No courtesy deletion since Commons license is irrevocable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
"Own work" by uploader, presumably subject. However, metadata disagrees, "Copyright © 2012 Oklahoma State University" etc. This needs to be adressed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Random nude photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that theis IS an unuseful, random photo. It's a unique photo that shows nudist at his daily work. SuperFlight1 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's a photo that should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:6020:49A6:BD00:C928:BC17:8796:2002 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's a goog picture — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.31.106.192 (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the photo and the sock puppets. 186.175.194.58 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The question is: Does the uploader really want to contribute or is that an abuse of Commons as web host for personal presentation of himself? --Achim55 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete we don’t need random photos of random situations, nude or not. Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Aakhir Palaayan Kab Tak 2024 movie poster ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find on the source link that the image or the website content is licensed under CC0. Günther Frager (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find on the source link that the image or the website content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Günther Frager (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Unlike own work. Profesional photo that has a watermark from "Eslam Ghaly". Günther Frager (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Нет источников. Все эти флаги придуманные в социальных сетях не имеюь юридической силы и ни кем не признанные 212.154.56.32 01:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Use {{Factual accuracy}} instead until it can be renominated when it is no longer used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Questionable own-work claim. Low resolution, no Exif, angle of Abhisit Vejjajiva 2008-03-20.jpg suggests screenshot of official parliamentary broadcast. Abhisit Vejjajiva 2008-03-20.jpg and Taksin the Great.jpg were uploaded at Flickr right before being uploaded to Commons, which suggests Flickr washing. Paul_012 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, small crops of unknown source, COM:PRP. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Source not correctly indicated. Impossible to know the author or even when the picture was released. Therefore, impossible to assess if the image is "free" and can be uploaded here. Also, "Jornal Uai" is a newspaper in Brazil, therefore, this picture can very much be a copyvio. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Is this the reupload of deleted file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moschea Hassan II.jpg? (As the uploader is the same uploader) If not, then still not OK as showing interior architecture of a copyrighted architectural work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment They are not the same image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy OK. Still, the interior architecture of the mosque is still shown. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An editor requested deletion: "can you please take off this photo from here plese! as this is my car." Photo seems redundant and low quality so it likely is not much of a loss Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- This photo I took on a street in Valletta (Malta). There was no permission necessary as no persons can be seen on the photo. There is no "right of picture" for a car! --MartinHansV (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion, in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
What is this file about? What is muegge.cc? Is it about Uwe Muegge (in LinkedIn)? Then I think it is a personal file and should be deleted for that reason. The uploader, User:Ronhjones, sadly passed away, so we cannot ask him/her. The author made a contribution to EN-WP for the last time in 2008 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Autoterm). If we do not know what it is about, then how can this file be reused? JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it is also copyright violation. The image is made with Google Analytics, and I guess that is copyrighted. --JopkeB (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Unpublished work are still protected by copyright, needs permission from Jamal T.M
- File:Budha tooth relic temple , china town.jpg
- File:China Town, Singapore 01.jpg
- File:Clarke Quay 01.jpg
- File:Esplanade Studio.jpg
- File:Fire show at Singapore night safari.jpg
- File:Gardens by the bay Singapore.jpg
- File:Hanging bridge at Sur city 2.jpg
- File:Hanging bridge at Sur city.jpg
- File:Jurung birds park.jpg
- File:Marina bay Singapore 01.jpg
- File:Marina bay Singapore.jpg
- File:Marina Bay Singapore.jpg
- File:Puthrajaya grand mosque , KL, Malaysia.jpg
- File:Red Dot Museum.jpg
- File:Singapore Art Gallery.jpg
- File:Singapore National Museum.jpg
- File:Sky desk, Marina Bay Sands Hotel.jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque Sohar 01.jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque Sohar 02.jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque Sohar 03.jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grant Mosque Sohar Entrance.jpg
- File:Universal Studio Singapore 01.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. And category also deleted since it is now empty. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Minister Infrastruktury Dariusz Klimczak powołał z dniem 11 stycznia 2024 roku Joannę Kopczyńską na stanowisko Prezesa Państwowego Gospodarstwa Wodnego Wody Polskie..jpg
[edit]Zdjęcie pobrane ze strony ministerstwa, bez dokładnej licencji i opisania. Mateusz Gieryga (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation Jjpachano (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, already published online prior to upload to Commons. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
"Date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it."
- File:Bernabé Arnaudo.png
- File:Reunión de Gobernadores del Nuevo Cuyo, 1992.png
- File:Aníbal Salom.png
- File:Cierre de campaña de Angeloz 1989.jpg
- File:Cierre de campaña de Menem 1989.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel Voy a escribir en español, espero sepas disculparme. Las dos primeras el link dice con claridad absoluta, en el primer renglón, que las fotos son de 1992 (hace ya más de 20 años de eso, si las cuentas no me fallan. [7]
La tercera, en los comentarios se aclara que la foto es de 1973, no hay que explayarse demasiado al respecto.
Con respecto a las dos últimas. Las elecciones de 1989 fue la única ocasión en la que Eduardo Angeloz fue candidato presidencial, y la última vez que Carlos Menem compartió fórmula con Eduardo Duhalde (la tarima lo dice "Menem-Duhalde"), y 1989 hace ya 30 años (el mismo link lo dice). Las fotos son de los cierres de campañas de ambas fuerzas el 12 de mayo de 1989, lo dice el mismo link y no cuesta tanto verlo. En ambas fotos se cita al medio Telám, argentino, como fuente de las fotos y, por lo tanto, aplicanse las leyes de copyright argentinas (25 años de la publicación). No necesito más evidencia que esa, las leyes de derechos de autor en Argentina son claras al respecto.--FelipeRev (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that some of them are part of a stock from a photo agency does not mean they have been published one day. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Para las dos últimas fotos aplica perfectamente, ya que la "agencia" en cuestión cita al medio de comunicación en el que fueron publicadas (Telám), como fuente.--FelipeRev (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Permission should be asked for specific version of Creative Commons license.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Recibí autorización expresa para utilizar esas imágenes en la misma cuenta de Facebook donde fueron publicadas. Lean los comentarios. En caso de ser requerido, puedo pedir al dueño que envíe una autorización expresa.--FelipeRev (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know Spanish :-( Please read w:es:Licencias Creative Commons to understand ambiguity of original permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- EugeneZelenko I said: I received express authorization to use those images in the same Facebook account where they were published. Read the comments. If required, I can ask the owner to send an express authorization. The photographs are, however, quite old, before 1960. I would prefer someone who understands Spanish to review it (it is not an aggression or offense, I say it so that he can understand what the link says). Regards and sorry :)--FelipeRev (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I could believe Google Translate you asked permission for licencia "Creative Commons". If you didn't read Spanish article yet, you could read shorter Commons:Licensing: there are Creative Commons licenses not allowed on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- EugeneZelenko I said: I received express authorization to use those images in the same Facebook account where they were published. Read the comments. If required, I can ask the owner to send an express authorization. The photographs are, however, quite old, before 1960. I would prefer someone who understands Spanish to review it (it is not an aggression or offense, I say it so that he can understand what the link says). Regards and sorry :)--FelipeRev (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- EugeneZelenko I already sent another comment to the owner of the image specifying the license. Soon we will have your answer.--FelipeRev (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Photographer permission needed. — Racconish 💬 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
better version of this photo exists, e.g. File:Chen Duxiu.jpg File:Chen Duxiu4.jpg. no need to crop a photo of a poster that printed this photo... notice how the eyebrow is different from the original, probably due to scanning and printing and scanning... over and over.
RZuo (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Por requerimiento del autor Cardinalabgs (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Descatualizado Cardinalabgs (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unused photo of non-notable person, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
(c) all rights reserved ZimskoSonce (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:German Drummer Christin Neddens (photo credits by gerhard kühne).jpg” under ticket:2024012410005779. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: VRTS permission has been added. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Todos los derechos reservados UNICERVANTES© 2023. Bogotá, Colombia source: https://carrerasuniversitarias.unicervantes.edu.co/gracias/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Sky TG 24 channel screenshot ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Pic is authorised by Skytg24 and is free to share — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teltx (talk • contribs) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No está anexado a algun artículo aún Deralmadrid (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
copyright schending. Dit is duidelijk een screenshot, geen zelfgeschoten foto Saschaporsche (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bedankt voor de feedback, de foto is aangepast. Timmiiy (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
عدم اهمیت موضوع، عدم مشهوریت Fisaghores1099 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
عدم مشهوریت، تلاش برای تخریب چهره Fisaghores1099 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
nicked from Insta; bogus license Wutsje 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Es dominio público James Anthoony (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No FOP in Canada for 2D works, and the text appears to be complex enough for a copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
La calidad de la imagen no es óptima y no puede ser empleada enciclopédicamente, además, ya hay otras fotos del mismo plato Yhhue91 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ankara University
[edit]Media published on Unsplash after 4 June 2017 are not available under CC-Zero and do not comply with Commons licensing policy. See Unsplash
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 01.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 02.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 03.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 04.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 05.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 06.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 07.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 08.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 09.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 10.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 14.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 15.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 18.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 19.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 20.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 21.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 22.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 23.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 24.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 25.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 26.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 27.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 28.jpg
- File:Ankara Üniversitesi 29.jpg
0x0a (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Mohamed VI Turm
[edit]There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Morocco. The w:en:Mohammed VI Tower was completed just last year (2023) and authored by architects w:en:Rafael de La-Hoz Castanys and Hakim Benjelloun. No commercial Creative Commons licensing permission from the architects, violation of architectural copyrights.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grand Theatre of Rabat
[edit]There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Morocco. The landmark here is copyrighted; the author (architect Zaha Hadid) died in 2016.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The photo, which looks like it was scanned from some publication, shows an Austrian painter who died in 1957. The photographer is said to be not known. To be able to (perhaps) determine the copyright status of the photo, we would need a proper source and date. Else the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle (1957 is much too late to assume that the photo must be in the public domain regardless). Rosenzweig τ 09:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Tineye and Google Image found no active copyright claim or named creator. We do not use the 1947 date, he is not 88 in the image, he looks about 70. We estimate dates for images all the time, they did not come with exif data prior to digital cameras. {{PD-1996}} would apply. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claims about what "we" supposedly do. That's maybe what you wish that we do. I also disagree that he "is not 88" in the image, people can look younger, it varies from person to person. Google/Tineye searches are not sufficient to find photos that old and obviously scanned from somewhere, even if Tineye or Google boast that they search dozens of billions of images, there are still much more which they don't find, especially before ca. the 2000s. And even if the photo were from 1939 and out of copyright in Austria (which we don't know), it would still be protected in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file", you have not provided actionable evidence, just fear, uncertainty and doubt, that the person may be older than they look. Every image we host prior to exif data, has an estimated date of creation. The definition of due diligence to meet the legal burden of proof, is searching 15 billion images. You cannot prove a negative, if I searched every single image in the galaxy looking for an active copyright claim or an attributed author, you could argue that the image may exist in another galaxy that I haven't looked at yet. The provisions of the EU license allow a claw back from the public domain should the image ever be found to have an active copyright claimant. --RAN (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- So no answer to the fact that a 1939 Austrian photo would still be protected in the US? Just boilerplate text? --Rosenzweig τ 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; RAN always forgets about URAA. —holly {chat} 20:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) Frank-Michael Arndt M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Frank Michael Arndt is a photographer who has been employed at Zeiss Grossplanetarium Berlin. Occasionally, he also made portraits of the employees. This photograph is used on the minor planet-website introducing the name of the astronomer after whom the asteroid is named. Therefore, I trust that the source website and the wikipedia are allowed to use the photograph (authorized by depicted person and photographer). LittleAstronomer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There is no free license on the source web site, so the photo is presumably under copyright without a free license and not ok for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @LittleAstronomer: Wenn der Fotograf Frank-Michael Arndt damit einverstanden ist, dass dieses Foto hier unter der beim Hochladen gewählten freien Lizenz verbreitet wird, möge er das bitte durch eine per E-Mail direkt von ihm an Wikimedia Commons geschickte Genehmigung bestätigen. Für Details, den Wortlaut und die E-Mail-Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. Wenn eine solche Genehmigung kommt und akzeptiert wird, können wir die Datei vermutlich behalten. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- bin überzeugt, FMA hat dieses Bild im Rahmen seiner Dienstverpflichtung gemacht und daher die Nutzungsrechte abgetreten. allerdings ist die Webseite, auf der das Bild gefunden wurde in der Tat dubios... daher habe ich mich inzwischen um ein anderes Bild gekümmert und mir ist egal, ob dieses hier gelöscht wird. ich selbst kann das nicht (weiß nicht, wie's geht), sonst hätte ich es gleich ersetzt statt ein neues hochzuladen. LittleAstronomer (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Auch wenn die Nutzungsrechte abgetreten wurden, gibt es einen Rechteinhaber, dessen Zustimmung benötigt wird. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- bin überzeugt, FMA hat dieses Bild im Rahmen seiner Dienstverpflichtung gemacht und daher die Nutzungsrechte abgetreten. allerdings ist die Webseite, auf der das Bild gefunden wurde in der Tat dubios... daher habe ich mich inzwischen um ein anderes Bild gekümmert und mir ist egal, ob dieses hier gelöscht wird. ich selbst kann das nicht (weiß nicht, wie's geht), sonst hätte ich es gleich ersetzt statt ein neues hochzuladen. LittleAstronomer (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Privacy rights. Personal photo, published without the consent of the portrayed person. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support agents can see Ticket:2024012110004311 about it. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not a question of privacy: the depicted person was advertised as being present at the fair, and was promoting her works. Furthermore, she is looking straight into the camera and aware she is being photographed. I do not necessarily object to deleting the images (there are several), but it would be on courtesy grounds. Rama (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
PS: what does "personal photo" mean? I am the author of these images, they have not been provided by the subject. Rama (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
PPS2: See File:Bessa Myftiu Wikipedia II.jpg and related Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bessa Myftiu Wikipedia II.jpg. Rama (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it is a personal portrait, and Bessa Myftiu claims in her email to the support team that she did not give you permission to publish it. The issue is right of personality, not copyright. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that neither Bessa Myftiu, nor yourself, are aware of the implications of what you are saying.
- I do not need permission to publish this portrait. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Because we live in societies and one person's freedom ends where another's begins, there are limits to this right, such as privacy; but there can be no expectation of privacy when someone is advertising their presence at a book fair to publicise their products. I would not even have been able to put a name on these images if there had not been a name tag or book right next to the subject.
- Furthermore, it is implausible that the requester suddenly finds my portrait to be a problem, 13 years after it was published; and, by coincidence, just as an account with her name is trying to publish a professionally-made portrait (which is ok), put it on her own biography (which is quite borderline), in possible violation of the professional's copyright (which is definitely not). This is transparently a power move against me to force the use of the subject's favourite image, and I do not take kindly to the method with which this is visited upon me.
- As it is formulated, the request is an unreasonable infringement on my freedom of expression. I am willing to remove images upon polite request, as a courtesy; I am, however, unwilling to renounce my fundamental rights upon being insulted or threatened, which is what the accusation of privacy violation amounts to. Rama (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Rama Thanks for your argument. The issue is two-sided. I agree with you that I dislike is not an argument to delete an image of a notable person presenting in public. However, if you zoom in that person with large aperture, such there is only a near portrait of a face with bokeh around, imo the public context vanishes, the image gets a private character, and the person should be asked. – Personally I hope that Bessa Myftiu can solve the copyright issue with the newer photo and get a photographer's permission, such that this photo can be used in her article. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Mussklprozz for taking my argument into consideration.
- It so happens that the present case is almost exactly what is cited as an exemption to privacy protection by the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (emphasis added) [8]:
Before an image is published, consent must be obtained from the people shown in it unless an overriding public or private interest justifies publication. This interest must be assessed conservatively, however, especially in the case of images of individuals (e.g. when reporting on public events such as sporting events or concerts that are of particular significance, or in media reports in compliance with the journalistic duty of care). If there is any doubt, consent should be obtained.
- @Rama Thanks for your argument. The issue is two-sided. I agree with you that I dislike is not an argument to delete an image of a notable person presenting in public. However, if you zoom in that person with large aperture, such there is only a near portrait of a face with bokeh around, imo the public context vanishes, the image gets a private character, and the person should be asked. – Personally I hope that Bessa Myftiu can solve the copyright issue with the newer photo and get a photographer's permission, such that this photo can be used in her article. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it is not so much the deletion itself that I object to; I am and remain open to acceding to it as a courtesy. It is the stated rational that I find unacceptable. Rama (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree. This image is not about the event. It is about the person. I do not doubt that it was taken at the Geneva bookfare, but with the blurred background it could have been taken anywhere. The last sentence of the legal text applies: When in doubt .... – Anyway, I will not defend the delete request any further. Have a good night! --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Again, it is not so much the deletion itself that I object to; I am and remain open to acceding to it as a courtesy. It is the stated rational that I find unacceptable. Rama (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; per COM:PIP we do not normally delete photos taken in a public place with no expectation of privacy. —holly {chat} 20:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
OOS digital fantasy woman. (Compliments on your work, but IMO not realistically useful for Commons.) Relationship to pre-Columbian sculpture is minimal at best. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks on the compliments. I based the body proportions and shape to the pre-contact statue known as Venus of Tamtoc, including the sacred scarifications. The original statue is nude. There is relationship based on all that except the head and feet.
- Would a video of the comparison of the dimensions be accepted? The original documentary I did about her is in YouTube. Should I upload the entire documentary?
- I understand your preoccupation, although unlike Wikipedia I thought Wikimedia was not about gathering consensus around an image’s claim —- or sources for said claims.
- If a painting is said to portray, say Joan of Arc, and she wouldn’t fit into the image of someone’s idea of Joan of Arc… would that painting also be deleted? I ask sincerely, because I’ve been uploading paintings and drawings as well. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep did you even read the description? This is a recreation of an ancient statue, not a “digital fantasy woman”. It would be nice to have a comparison image of the actual statue, but if there’s a concern here it’s accuracy rather than “it’s porn lol” Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly did read the description before making this nomination. I am familiar with the pre-Columbian statue (and you can be as well by doing a search for photos), after which you can make up your own mind as to if this can legitimately be considered an educational archaeological reconstruction or more of a digital fantasy woman with a few details vaguely influenced by the pre-Columbian art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to be an accurate recreation. I mostly object to your characterization of it as an “OOS fantasy woman”, which in this context (a good faith contribution To an in-scope topic) is a vague non-rationale that also seems like you’re insinuating a sexual ulterior motive as a reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly did read the description before making this nomination. I am familiar with the pre-Columbian statue (and you can be as well by doing a search for photos), after which you can make up your own mind as to if this can legitimately be considered an educational archaeological reconstruction or more of a digital fantasy woman with a few details vaguely influenced by the pre-Columbian art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Video doesn't even show a statue, but a moving woman, appearing as if alive. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. —holly {chat} 21:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{PD-1996}} Appears to be the correct license. --RAN (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt that the picture was free in France in 1996 (point 3 of the license), since it was taken in 1948 and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France states life of author + 70 years. That seems not possible. --Druschba 4 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; even if author died the next day after taking the photo, it wouldn't have become PD until 2018, long after the URAA restoration date. —holly {chat} 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
1949 photograph according to uk:Файл:Юрій Лопатинський.jpg. Public domain in Ukraine (became so in 2000 and again in 2020) but this was not public domain there in 1996 so URAA issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
India protects signatures with copyright so we can't host this here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's used anywhere anyway, nor do I know to which Amit Singh it belongs. BD2412 T 20:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Immagine senza dati Exif, caricata con una licenza non corretta (dichiara di esserne l'autore ma anche che non lo è). Si richiede gentilmente l'autorizzazione scritta dell'autore, contattare un Volunteer Response Team (VRT), grazie. Threecharlie (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; verification of license is required from Marco Magliani. —holly {chat} 23:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't have any sources. Seems made up. Correct map is on Wikipedia as File:UaFirstNationality2001-Fr.jpg
Riwnodennyk (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep this graph, because it has a higher level of information. The Zygel diagram talks about the majority (the winner takes it all), while the Yerevanci diagram has more nuances: mostly vs predominantly. Moreover, the Yerevanci map talks about an ethno-linguistic map which comprises both ethnicity and preferred langugage.
- If you say that the references are missing, this is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for improvement. The easiest way would be to contact User:Yerevanci if he could add information about the source of the file. Or other users recognize the map as well and can add the source. I personally don't assume that the information is nonsense, because - apart from the less nuanced depicting - both diagrams say the same. --Gunnar (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here are two similar maps, from Stratfor and The Observer. As shown in this language map, there is a benefit in giving a nuanced scaling (mostly A, predominantly A, predominantly B, mostly B) instead of just majority A vs. majority B. The Kharkiv oblast has a majority of 53 % Ukrainian speakers and the Odessa oblast has a majority of 45 % Ukrainian. But you do not see a half-blue and half-brown pattern in the district structures of the oblasts, as the majority approach neglects the in-between scales. --Gunnar (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; if there is a problem with the map, fix it. —holly {chat} 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Violation of Commons:Fan art, too accurate to the original sprite. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It is tagged as "public domain" as the work of a US government employee. However, there is no actual evidence a US government employee took that photo, and it seems unlikely that one did. The image was sourced from a (since deleted) blog post on a US government website – the Internet archive has preserved it – however, just because a US government website uses a photo, does not automatically make the photo public domain – it is only public domain if a US government employee took the photo in the course of their official duties. Possibly, the author of the text of the blog post is a US government employee–although that is not certain, since "Sara Bellum" is a pseudonym, and NIDA's page about her says she is written by a "team of NIDA scientists, science writers, educators, and teens" – "NIDA scientists" would be US government employees, but "teens" probably aren't, and we don't know who in the team wrote this blog post. In any event, even if the text of the blog post is public domain, the image of Lindsay Lohan would not be public domain unless a US government employee actually took it. We don't know the source of this image, but it seems unlikely that it was taken by any US government employee in the course of their official duties, it seems much more likely it was taken by a commercial photographer, and used by the US government (presumably by permission), and hence would be copyrighted. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- based on evidence Delete SDudley (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- A smaller version of this picture was published in 2007 with the credit " Photo(s) by Dave Edwards- © 2007- DailyCeleb.com- All Rights Reserved". Joofjoof (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --✗plicit 13:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Metallic finishes make this above threshold of originality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- replace with this: File:Metroid-Samus-Returns-Logo 1.png - Wikimedia Commons Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
per https://twitter.com/courtjeweller/status/1749820007150985360 this is not from the 19th Century, would be late 1920s at the earliest. Would need to know the actual provenance of the painting to host this here. Abzeronow (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Is it AI generated? I cannot find it anywhere on the Internet and the attribution doesn't appear to be real. --RAN (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- The tiara and other jewelry in this painting are accurate depictions of the Norwegian emerald parure, which the author of that Twitter thread has written about at some length [9]. It's unlikely (although not impossible) that an AI-generated painting would be able to match their appearance this precisely. Omphalographer (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Distressed logo makes it borderline TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
© 2003-2024 ZOS, Lda. - All rights reserved. ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- See the origin and read what it says below the photo. I'll read it for you: "When this photo was uploaded, the user agreed that it either belonged to him/her, or that he was authorised by the author of the photo to use it, or even that the photo is of public domain. If that information is not correct, please inform us." Was posted 2 years ago. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you say that the copyright belongs to ZOS and you do not show any source. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen that ZOS is copyright of the website, not the photo. The photo is in the public domain, clarified by the same website, which declares that the person who publishes it is the author or responsible for affirming it as public domain, therefore it should not be deleted. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Non-free, if you want a free image of Stolarczyk, travel on Leicester matches, home or away and take shoots. Otherwise, please don't upload non-free images of Stolarczyk from websites.Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Its a free image,go to the website and read. One thing is the Copyright about website, another one when the image was from an user that say its Public Domain. Elpvnketo (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Non-free, if you want a free image of Stolarczyk, travel on Leicester matches, home or away and take shoots. Otherwise, please don't upload non-free images of Stolarczyk from websites.Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen that ZOS is copyright of the website, not the photo. The photo is in the public domain, clarified by the same website, which declares that the person who publishes it is the author or responsible for affirming it as public domain, therefore it should not be deleted. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you say that the copyright belongs to ZOS and you do not show any source. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a trustworthy source. There is no active license declaration by the uploader. Even on sites where the users do that (like Flickr), we still have to be on the lookout for license laundering. Even if we assume that the user's agreement to the T&C was valid, the second possibility, namely "that he was authorised by the author of the photo to use it", is a statement only applies to the uploader himself, not anyone else. —holly {chat} 21:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment Can we delete images actively used on a wiki? It is used on de.wiki, but the metadata is a mess Alachuckthebuck (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, happens all the time, CommonsDelinker Bot will take care of removing the file from de.Wiki automaticly after it has been deleted on commons. Like for example this edit. Best regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above Alachuckthebuck (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment 1903 photo published in 1948 magazine in France; no information if it was published before. Might be PD - what would the correct copyright status be, or can that be established? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The skull and crossbones as well as the distressed and scratched text make it above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- See also mass deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics Cmprince (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this is above TOO. 69.174.144.79 05:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
DW of this, which is above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, for the reasons given in Commons:Deletion requests/File:One piece.png. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- See also the mass deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics Cmprince (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be in the COM:FANART category. A stylized skull and crossbones isn't necessarily copyrightable. Importantly, it's missing the straw hat. —holly {chat} 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete too close to the real thing to fall within FANART. 69.174.144.79 05:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Although I don't see what permission is required here, this photo is unused and uncategorized, so it's a random store in an unknown location. Seems out of scope to me. —holly {chat} 19:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
KeepGoogle Lens reveals it is an advertising agency in Dubai. I have placed it in Category:Economy of Dubai for now; another editor familiar with the city may find another place for it. As with views of other city streets around the world, I think this passes COM:PS as depicting the appearance of part of the city at a specific point in time. The primary educational value will probably be in a few generations when editors compare now to then.There is nothing to indicate this is a copyright violation; it is a photograph of a street scene that anyone could have made. We assume good faith in the uploader unless there are other causes for concern.From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)- Somehow I missed the previous cases of copyright violation. On the basis of the behaviour pattern I can't say that this isn't a copyvio. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It's a web-resolution, no-EXIF image of an unremarkable storefront, unused for over 6 years, by an uploader whose other uploads have been deleted for copyvio, and whose enwiki talkpage gives pretty clear evidence of someone engaged in promotional editing. 69.174.144.79 05:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Holly. Out of scope, and its copyright status is questionable. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
not PD, from 1970s PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not PD-old. Also, the linked page hidden in the file description says "Copyright 2017" (I don't see this image there, however). 69.174.144.79 05:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
File:.1969 Bajo enorme presión política, el presidente Fidel Sánchez Hernández reúne a unos 500 oficiales del ejércitoSV en Casa Presidencial y les insinúa que, en pocas horas, estallará un conflicto bélico contra Honduras.jpg
[edit]not an own work, not PD, from 1969 PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Does not appear to be own work. Uploader appears to have a pattern of placing incorrect licensing tags on images belonging to others. 69.174.144.79 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Delh}} UnpoeticNad (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence the coat of arms has changed. This image is inaccurate in the quarters for Sabah and Sarawak. 71.239.86.150 22:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fake CoA, no such CoA ever exist in the Federation of Malaysia. 2405:3800:85F:C312:C41C:D2FF:FE24:770C 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ayzkao: This file is in use all over the place. Please replace existing usages first before we proceed with deletion. —holly {chat} 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
nous ne souhaitons pas qu'elle soit utilisée à des fins commerciales Leon Zanella (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - license is irrevocable. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
painted in 2001, therfore artist died in less than 70 years ago : not in public domain Zen 38 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Artist was the original uploader. —holly {chat} 20:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Holly. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment 1901 photo as published in a 1947 magazine in France - might be PD? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep PD-1996 is the correct license. --RAN (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Was it free in France in 1996 (point 3 of PD-1996)? That would require death of the author + 70 years at that time, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France. Otherwise PD-1996 does not apply from what I understand. According to Commons:Copyright rules#When the photographer is unknown that would not be a safe, valid assumption for a picture taken in 1901, when 1996 is the date in question.
- Template:PD-old-assumed might apply for pictures taken before 1904 in general and also in this specific case. Problem is, that a seperate license tag for US-PD ist required in combination with PD-old-assumed, and I'm currently unable to find any valid for a magazine published outside the US in 1947. See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#General rules point 5. Template:PD-US-unpublished would work nicely, but applies only if the picture was not published until 2003, which is obviously not the case. All the other usual PD-US-old-whatever-licenses seem to refer to the publishing date and not to the date of creation, looping back to 1947 (the only publication date we currently know), therefore PD-1996 and therefore back to question one.
- I am fine with PD-old-assumed, if we find any matching US-PD-tag. --Druschba 4 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: The 1947 publication was a republication of this photograph. The original publication appears to have been before 1929, will adjust license to PD-old-assumed-expired. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Although the current source of the picture claims it was made by IDF Spokesperson's Unit, this is probably not the case: the photograph of Aby Obaida with uncovered face first appeared in 2017 without any statement about its authorship, and Palestinian sources insisted that this picture is not correct [10]. We cannot keep this photo without deeper research about its origins. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1 — not a reliable source (see WP:RS)
- Also, there are other reliable sources who claim that it is Abu Obaida in the photo, and the photo was taken by the IDF Spokeperson's Unit: 2 3 4 TheLup (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can believe that the Arab source is not reliable while Israeli sources are reliable. The problem is that the Arab website had this photograph in 2017 while all Israeli sources you provide are of 2023. We could admit the discrepancy between Arab and Israeli sources about who is pictured and mention it in the description of the picture; but we cannot ignore the fact that the photograph itself was made we don't know when by we don't know whom (and in 2023 was only distributed by IDF spokesperson). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of whether the source is Arabic or Israeli. There is a clear explanation in WP:RS:
- Such [questionable] sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. TheLup (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can believe that the Arab source is not reliable while Israeli sources are reliable. The problem is that the Arab website had this photograph in 2017 while all Israeli sources you provide are of 2023. We could admit the discrepancy between Arab and Israeli sources about who is pictured and mention it in the description of the picture; but we cannot ignore the fact that the photograph itself was made we don't know when by we don't know whom (and in 2023 was only distributed by IDF spokesperson). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP, there is enough evidence that this was published by Arabic sites in 2017, and so the copyright status of this image is unknown. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The picture was borrowed from an obscure website and has no reliable sources. It's unclear who is pictured but definitely not Vasily Agapkin as far as he had not been awarded with the awards we can see on the chest of this guy. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right! This is not him. It is true, this photo was photo-copied from the Agapkin daughter's family photo-album many years ago, along with real Agapkin and his relatives pictures. This officer is a kind of composer's fiends of that time or his distant kins. And among the other copied real photos this particular photo was then "identified" as showing Vasily Agapkin in parade uniform of Russian tsar army years.... But this is wrong!
- I know what I am saying. I am myself grand-grand-son of V.I.Agapkin, and has had and has now full access to the mentioned family archive.
- Thanx!
- Alexander 195.96.66.115 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe need to kept and rename to "Unknown military people from the Russian Imperial Army" (for prevent re-uploading this same file with the this same mistake). --Kaganer (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Андрей Романенко: This appears to be a pre-1917 Russian photograph, do we have any reason to believe it's not public domain? As Kaganer says, we can rename this photograph so it doesn't misidentify the sitter as Agapkin. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I would not mind this solution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Will be renamed to correct problem. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I had marked this file, uploaded by User:Charenton in 2019 as "own work" from that year with a CC license (but described as showing someone in 1941), as missing a source because it was obviously scanned from some publication, including a caption Georges Dunan à Nice vers 1941. Coll. J.-P. Weber. User:Kasskass has since added a 1941-01-01 date (I doubt that the "January 1st" part is true given that the man shown is wearing a bath robe outside), a source reneedunan.over-blog.com, a claim that the author is anonymous, and a PD-anon-70-EU tag. While [11] indeed has the photo, the same scan complete with caption, that is obviously not the original source, which is still missing, and we cannot determine if there was a credit in the original source or not.
The uploader had added, just before, Photo donnée par A de Mytho de Nice à JPW. Where does that information come from? Is it from the original source? And if that amount of detail is known, shouldn't the photographer be known as well? A de Mytho is apparently French writer fr:Annie de Mytho (1899–1999). Is she the photographer? If yes, the photograph is still protected in France until the end of 2069. Even if she is not, the photo could have acquired a US copyright because of the URAA, depending on its "publication" history.
To sum it up, the "anonymous author" claim is a bit too tidy in my eyes, considering that there is apparently more information available than we are given. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be either under a free license or in the public domain in both France and the US. Rosenzweig τ 21:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Haha l'enquêteur Sherlock Rosenzweig a encore frappé. À grand renfort d'interprétation comme toujours...
- Cette photographie est de temps en temps reproduites dans des articles consacrés à Renée Dunan (ex: art de 2000 de Claudine Brécourt-Villars ds Histoires littéraires). Évidemment que la précision du 1er janvier est arbitraire, on ne connaît pas la date exacte.
- Cette illustration est une copie d'une photographie prise en 1941 dont l'auteur est anonyme. De là à affirmer que, parce qu'Annie de Mytho l'aurait donné à J-P Weber, elle en serait l'autrice... Cette photographie prise en 1941 est dans le domaine public (70 ans quand l'auteur est anonyme), donc la copie est recevable sur Commons.
- Inutile de broder plus en l'absence d'informations fiables.
- Cordialement, Kasskass (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- So when and where was this photograph published first? --Rosenzweig τ 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: URAA applies. I am also skeptical about this being truly anonymous. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Inside the letter O of the logo we can see a rather clear graphical representation of a plane, which is not - obviously a "simple geometric shape" and thus it should be considered whether this alone qualifies the whole file for copyrights infringement. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete Commons plays far too fast and loose with PD-textlogo. There's a lot of stylistic detail in this logo. 69.174.144.79 05:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Delete here since that O appears to be above the ToO of Poland. Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No publication info to support license. Says that it was a family photo, not publicity photo, so no reason to assume it was published in 1941. Photo was previously uploaded as File:John Hubley.jpg, which was deleted after email to VRTS was insufficient. dave pape (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this photograph was never copyrighted or registered. I am the owner of this image and the friend of the Hubley family who uploaded it. When I uploaded it, I was not as familiar as I am now with Wikipedia's usage tags, my apologies. The family has it dated as 1941, as it was shortly after his first wedding. BakedintheHole (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @BakedintheHole Due to messy US copyright laws, if it was never published, then it probably is still copyrighted; if, on the other hand, it was published, the publication info should be added. As a family photo, the best option is for the family to officially confirm its status with the Commons:Volunteer Response Team. dave pape (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BakedintheHole: If Claudia Ross Hubley is still alive, she can give it a free license. If she has passed, then her heirs can do it. Either way, this is accomplished by sending an email to COM:VRT or by visiting COM:RELGEN. —holly {chat} 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ticket:2024030210006047 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted already by Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Mark Ross Hubley, John Hubley’s son, sent a permission admittance to Wikipedia Commons releasing this photograph into the public domain. I do not know why it was deleted, but I am going to re-upload the photograph as public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakedintheHole (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Komarof as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Earliest webhits are from Wikipedia, I'm inclined towards Keep here unless there's evidence presented of this being a copyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This file is tagged as GFDL-1.2/CC-SA-3.0-Unported licensed by English Wikipedia user RadioKirk–who has not edited since 2007. However, the image description says "taken 13 December 2002 in Beverly Hills, California, by Michael Lohan using RadioKirk's camera" – as far as I am aware, copyright belongs to the photographer, not the owner of the camera, so if Michael Lohan (Lindsay Lohan's father) took a picture of her using RadioKirk's camera, copyright to that would belong to Michael Lohan, not RadioKirk–and RadioKirk releasing it under GFDL/CC-SA would be invalid, since you (generally) can't license something when the copyright belongs to somebody else. Now, it is possible Michael Lohan may have assigned the copyright to RadioKirk, or granted RadioKirk a license broad enough to allow this–but we don't know that's the case–it seems just as likely (possibly more likely) that RadioKirk uploaded this under a misunderstanding of how copyright law works (e.g. my camera=my copyright). Hence, I'm thinking the validity of the licensing of this image is dubious, and it probably should be deleted. (I suppose if someone contacted Michael Lohan, and asked him to grant permission, and he granted that permission, it could remain, but I personally have no plans to attempt to contact him–and it is scarcely worth keeping, as such a low quality image anyway.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion. This looks cropped from a group photo - if you ask someone to take a photo of you with your own camera, do they have copyright? Joofjoof (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Joofjoof: The answer is ... it depends. Usually, yes. However, if a person in the photo posed everyone and selected the background, etc, then the actual camera operator was nothing more than a "human remote control" and the copyright would belong to the person who made the creative choices. —holly {chat} 19:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a better explanation. It covers the case I had in mind: fan meets celebrity -> asks other person to take a group photo. Joofjoof (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- As holly points out, usually the copyright belongs to the camera operator not the camera owner, so if you ask someone else to take a photo with your camera, the copyright would be theirs not yours. She is right that, if the camera owner gives sufficiently precise instructions to the camera operator as to how to take the photo, they may have no creative control and hence no actual copyright. However, we don't know the circumstances of the taking of this particular photo, so we can't say with any confidence which of those possible situations apply, and hence to whom the copyright belongs. All that said, it is a rather small low resolution image anyway, I'm not sure why we should keep a low resolution image whose copyright status is uncertain. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a better explanation. It covers the case I had in mind: fan meets celebrity -> asks other person to take a group photo. Joofjoof (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Joofjoof: The answer is ... it depends. Usually, yes. However, if a person in the photo posed everyone and selected the background, etc, then the actual camera operator was nothing more than a "human remote control" and the copyright would belong to the person who made the creative choices. —holly {chat} 19:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and COM:PRP. Where the uploader himself raises questions as to the copyright status of an image, we should not keep the image. 69.174.144.79 05:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)