Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/07/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Brazilian_Electoral_College_1974_(WORK_OF_FICTION).svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
porque me trae problemas con abrir aplicaciones 89.140.175.189 17:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside spammy sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside user sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
test image, low quality, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
{{copyvio|source=https://www.instagram.com/p/C31FSerrazk/}} Ycfjgt (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I was editing the source before rename process and by mistake I created a page without file. Please delete it and keep the other page. Kemkhachev (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
fuk. kasikornthaibank. fuk. send. monney. im. for. two. fuk. chaina. zero. monney. im. fuk. kasikornthaibank. fuk. hacked. ธนาคารจังรัย. ธนาคารอับปรี. ธนาคารกสิกรไทย. กุหาเงินไม่ได้ชักบาทมึงโอนเงินกุให้ไอ้คนจีนหมด ผะฝธนาคารจังรัยธนาคารอับปรี ธนาคารกสิกรไทย 49.237.19.149 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept, Obvious nonsense, no valid reason for deletion. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
L9....0pp 149.62.208.175 12:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Test or nonsense request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Taken from Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/p/CdT6NxTIDfD/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Otávio Astor Vaz Costa (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Fake flag. No encyclopedic purpose. Robertogilnei (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10 - It's a selfie with a background. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free content A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F3 per nom. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
low quality image, possibly spam per user's other uploads Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10 (see the category, it's 100% spam). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
- File:IVOIRMIXDJ.png
- File:LOGO IVOIRMIX OFFICIEL.png
- File:LOGO IVOIRMIX VERSION 2015.png
- File:LOGO IVOIRMIXDJ.jpg
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Vedobytes15 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
A duplicate file or unused file with a copy of the file. Gameposo (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Please provide a link to the other version when nominating this file again for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope (previous deletion request claimed duplicate, not the same reason) Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Existe um igual IMaracanau (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Mistake in the title (Match 62) Hurfer (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete -> Category:2010 FIFA World Cup Match 61, Uruguay v Netherlands. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Billinghurst. --Rosenzweig τ 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Protože musím upravit autorská práva Patrikpecenak2 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate Eliasvr09 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Duplicate of what file? --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Billinghurst. --Rosenzweig τ 09:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I (the uploader) am a dummy and completely missed this: https://www.icj-cij.org/disclaimer Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
because i made a mistake, and this is my own file JakedelCañar80 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Superseded by File:Army Capt. Kelly Elmlinger.jpg with higher resolution and no watermark. 0x0a (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Delete dupe, other file ca same resolution and no watermark. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Billinghurst. --Rosenzweig τ 09:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
C'est à vous que me souhaiter Mbaye Boye (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I am since two years not longer member of this Band. I want to delete this picture of me to brake this part. 79.225.156.111 16:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Die Band ist schon seit mehr als sechs Jahren nicht mehr existent und Matthias Kimpel war schon vor der Auflösung einige Jahre kein Mitglied mehr Rockaz (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Ticket:2024072110006049 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
And also:
Per COM:TOYS. 0x0a (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Valerymosaleva (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship claims based on low/inconsistent dimensions, and missing metadata. The user had uploaded several copyright violations.
0x0a (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship, given the uploader's history of copyright violations
- File:Khawaja Habibullah nowsheri Shrine.jpg → download from facebook (FBMD)
- File:Kashmir Law College zoom.png → crop from a video or something (black bar at the bottom)
0x0a (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
_Brazilian_Electoral_College_1974_(WORK_OF_FICTION).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Brazilian_Electoral_College_1974_(WORK_OF_FICTION).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: fictitious, as per filename. Omphalographer (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
_Brazilian_Electoral_College_1974_(WORK_OF_FICTION).svg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
_Brazilian_Electoral_College_1974_(WORK_OF_FICTION).svg){kind=link}
Derivatives of modern artworks, no FoP in Russia for sculpture.
- File:Мемориальная доска на здании Советской центральной библиотеки им. А.С. Крупнякова.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска писателю А. Крупнякову в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:С. А. Крупняков.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска на доме по улице Суворова в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Памятник Герою в Саду им. С.Р. Суворова.jpg
VLu (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Derivatives of modern artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.
- File:Могила проф. А.Т. Липатова на Марковском кладбище Й-Олы. 15.07.2024.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска народному артисту МАССР Ю. Рязанцеву в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Могила композитора Л.Н. Сахарова на Туруновском кладбище.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска К.К. Васину (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска заслуженному артисту РСФСР И. Т. Якаеву (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска деятелям театра, супругам Г. и Н. Константиновым (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Памятник на могиле Ф. П. Шабердина на Туруновском кладбище (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска ректору МарГУ В. Э. Колла (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска ректору МарГУ В. П. Ившину (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска А. И. Сабанцеву (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Культурно-выставочный центр Башня (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска народной артистке МАССР Вере Смирновой (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска профессору В. Н. Смирнову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Могила профессора В. Н. Смирнова на Туруновском кладбище Йошкар-Олы.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска депутату Г. А. Караваеву (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска В. Н. Пряхину (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Каникулы Эрика (Миклай Казаков).jpg
- File:Ото (Роща), 1988 г.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска учёному-лесоводу М. Д. Данилову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска А. Д. Кедровой (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска журналисту В. А. Матюшеву (Волжский район Марий Эл).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска марийской актрисе Р. А. Руссиной в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска архитектору П.А. Самсонову в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска врачу-педиатру Н.Н. Костровой (Марий Эл, пгт. Медведево).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Дмитриеву Юрию Яковлевичу (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Могила Дмитриева Юрия Яковлевича на Туруновском кладбище (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Могила Товашова А.Т., заслуженного юриста РСФСР (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Поповой-Каракуловой Нине Евсеевне, заслуженной артистке РСФСР (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска И. А. Невзорову и Ю. Б. Петрову (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска заслуженному агроному РСФСР Романову Арсению Ивановичу в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска на месте нахождения Ленинградской Военно-воздушной академии в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Герою Советского Союза Архипову Василию Степановичу (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска марийскому поэту Николаю Мухину в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска заслуженной артистке РСФСР Романовой Майе Тимофеевне в г. Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Кирилловой Сарре Степановне (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Тихоновой Анастасии Тихоновне (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Памятная доска артисту Г.Р. Копцеву (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Памятник композитору Андрею Эшпаю в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Кислицкому Виктору Дмитриевичу (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Могила Олега Воинова на Туруновском кладбище (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Могила Миклая Рыбакова на Туруновском кладбище (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Утросин Анатолий Андреевич (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Фадеев Амбросий Романович (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Бородин Василий Александрович (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Искандаров Алексей Искандарович (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска профессору К. Н. Санукову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска народному артисту РСФСР В. Д. Бурлакову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Пушкин Георгий Максимович (артист), мемориальная доска.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Страусовой Анастасии Гавриловне.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Василию Фёдоровичу Болотнову (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Евгению Зотову (Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Ямбердов Иван Михайлович (Марий Эл).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска поэту Валентину Колумбу.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска писателю Сергею Николаеву.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска писателю Миклаю Рыбакову.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска поэту Семёну Вишневскому.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска поэту Максу Майну.jpg
- File:П. А. Алмакаев.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1988_%D0%B3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Quick1984 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; most of these images are likely copyvio regardless. Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvios. --Gbawden (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Some more uploads with the same violations as above (copyvio + no FoP)
- File:Бюст Миклая Казакова.jpg
- File:Памятная доска Герою России М. Н. Евтюхину в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Могила писателя Косоротова Валентина Николаевича (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Шерстнёва Мария Степановна (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Ключников-Палантай Иван Степанович (Туруновское кладбище).jpg
- File:Оленёв Владимир Иванович (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Ишалёв Валентин Петрович (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска на доме № 2 по ул. Петрова в Йошкар-Оле.jpg
- File:Памятник прокурору Марий Эл Николаю Михайловичу Пиксаеву (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Герою Советского Союза Ивану Тихоновичу Рыжову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска народному писателю Марий Эл Николаю Арбану (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска профессору Александру Тихоновичу Липатову (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Таныгин Сергей Иванович (г. Йошкар-Ола).jpg
- File:Поэтесса, член Союза писателей России Ольга Левадная (г. Казань).jpg
- File:Памятник Йывану Кырла в с. Марисола Сернурского района РМЭ.jpg
- File:Молотова Тамара Лаврентьевна.jpg
- File:Золотова Татьяна Аркадьевна.jpg
- File:Крупняков Сергей Аркадьевич.jpg
- File:Награждение археолога, доктора исторических наук С. В. Большова.jpg
- File:Кандидат исторических наук А. В. Муравьёв.jpg
- File:Этнограф Н. А. Большова.jpg
- File:С. В. Большов.jpg
- File:Чествование музееведа Н. В. Иванова.jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска артисту, драматургу Константину Коршунову.jpg
- File:Надежда Александровна Большова.jpg
- File:Шурыгин Андрей Владимирович.jpg
- File:Памятная стена в Мемор-парк. комплексе им. С.Р. Суворова.jpg
- File:Здание Моркинского литературно-краеведческого музея им. Н.И. Казакова.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Quick1984 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as before. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the entire nomination carefully? This file has low resolution and no EXIF, can be found elsewhere [1], so probably it's a copyvio as almost all user's uploads, see his talk page. Hope you will refrain from transferring these copyvios to other projects. Quick1984 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed that one. Crossing out my Keep vote.
- The transferring is only for statues and sculptures because buildings fall under FoP. Nakonana (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the entire nomination carefully? This file has low resolution and no EXIF, can be found elsewhere [1], so probably it's a copyvio as almost all user's uploads, see his talk page. Hope you will refrain from transferring these copyvios to other projects. Quick1984 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete; PCP per my previous !vote. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Illustration by living person (Paolo Conte), not out of copyright Nutshinou Talk! 17:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdullah Hill Mahin (talk · contribs)
[edit]signature of nonnotable youtuber, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Publicdomain1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused AI-generated images of generic mail carriers, many of them in oddly military-styled uniforms. Plenty of real ones under Category:Mail carriers.
- File:Postman5.png
- File:Postman6.png
- File:Postman4.png
- File:Postman2.png
- File:Postman1.png
- File:Postman3.png
Omphalographer (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete not useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted image unsuitable for Commons. Güiseppi669 (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vector1036 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. All files available on-line on various sources.
- File:Aptornis defossor.jpg
- File:Thambetochen.png
- File:Natunaornis.png
- File:Escinco malgache.jpg
- File:Escinco pardo de Seychelles.jpg
- File:Diogenornis.png
- File:Moa de arbusto.webp
- File:Casuariidae.jpg
- File:Casuarius lydekkeri.jpg
- File:Sus salvanius.jpg
- File:Paujil de Alagoas.jpg
- File:Isla de seychelles.jpg
- File:Aldabrachelys gigantea hololissa.jpg
- File:Jbikijpo+´lm-kn lo.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vector1036 (talk · contribs)
[edit]User has a history of copyvios. Almost all of them are marked as "own work", but unlikely to be the user's own work.
- File:Virreinato del Perú (Intendencia de Arequipa) 1810.png
- File:Distribución de Pudella carlae.png
- File:Pudella carlae.jpg
- File:Parque de las Leyendas Huachipa2.png
- File:Mapa - Parque de las Leyendas.png
- File:Zona selva baja - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Cabras anglonubianas - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Mariposa búho - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Isla de los monos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Nutria gigante - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Otorongos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Oso de anteojos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Ocelotes - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Leopardo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Suricatas - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Maini y Ukuku - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Papión sagrado - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Tigresas - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Chiclayanita - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Foca gris - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Canguros Rojo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Osos pardo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Naycha - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Domingo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Hipopotamos cubanos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Leones - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Tres leones machos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
_1810.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
SHB2000 (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I've already gone through multiple of this user's files and found them to be taken from the Internet and marked them as copyvios. I seriously doubt that any of these are the uploader's own work. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, the Pudella carlae image is a copyvio from here, with Image credit: Sernanp. Wouldn't be surprised if all others were also incorrectly marked. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete After selecting an image at random, file:Oso de anteojos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg, I quickly found that it was seemingly taken from this blog post or similiar, posted January of 2023. Just because somebody takes a screenshot of a webimage does not make it "own work", and I suspect that is the misunderstanding which has happened. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Randomly picking Tigresas - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg, I can find it was published in several places before this upload. PCP. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vector1036 (talk · contribs)
[edit]User blocked for copyvios, small files without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Aviario - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Oso Pardo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Oso negro - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Gallito de las rocas- Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Hipopotamos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Tutay Fauna - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Carla - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:F. Benavides - Otorongo.jpg
- File:Elefante Asiático - Mery.png
- File:Dromedario - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Jirafa y Cebras - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Cóndor Andino - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Pumas andinos - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Aves Guaneras - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:VILLA CARMELO - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Lobo marino - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Venado cola blanca - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Cocodrilo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Venados - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Gallito de las rocas - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Guacamayo azul y amarillo - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Amazona - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Guacamayo escarlata - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Chimpancé común - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Mara patagónica - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
- File:Jaguar melánico - Parque de las Leyendas.jpg
Yann (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete; PCP per my previous !vote. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 11:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
1948 German work by an author who died in 1972. Undelete in 2043. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already in the PD in Germany with {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, but still protected in the US (URAA) until the end of 2043. Undelete in 2044. --Rosenzweig τ 15:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
this isn't a public domain image, it's a copyrighted photograph with words on top of it HadesTTW (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any source that the image is copyrighted? Its a photo by the US Government. TheOmniCommie (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Copyright is owned by Win McNamee and has not been released into the public domain or with a license compatible with Commons: Getty images. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 15:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obvious copyright violation AideDésintéressée (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP; looks like a TV/video screenshot (compare this video). --Rosenzweig τ 15:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
According to the description, this is a coloration of a photograph. Source for the photograph is missing. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP; apparently not own work (except the color), but no source given so we cannot determine the copyright status. --Rosenzweig τ 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a American collectable that depicts the German battleship Bismarck (launched 1939, scuttled in 1941). Potentially still in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. Those are actually two different silver bars it seems, one American, one German apparently, both look rather recent and are therefore probably still copyrighted. --Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. If you are trying to create or update an article on Wikipedia, please read en:Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, or ask for help at the en:Wikipedia:Teahouse. Omphalographer (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused AI-generated image of a "Viking princess". Omphalographer (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this doesn’t resemble a Viking at all Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Unclear source of satellite image. Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
likely copyvio found on this account [2] Waqar💬 07:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by another sysop. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sensationsentertainment123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused, exceptionally low quality, and redundant to file:Flag of the Aeroflot stamp.png and its SVG version The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
wanted video but accidentally media Galstyan Karen Artyushovich (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
out of scope Lotje (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment Uploader is also blocked on En Wiki (from where this file was cross-uploaded) for Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. See block log. Nakonana (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete lacks educational value, privacy concerns. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Discreetalmonds (talk · contribs)
[edit]text documents only used on inactive user page, out of scope
- File:Ugandaplanpeerreview.png
- File:Editedfileugandaplan.png
- File:Myedits.png
- File:Edits.png
- File:Peer reviews (1).pdf
TheImaCow (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Because it is Breach of Freedom of Panorama Hugo R ibañez (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This park is on permanent public display and no admission is charged. --Sanqui (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see anything in frame which would obviously be a protected work. There's no work of artwork or sculpture visible, and the only building is an extremely generic-looking shed deep in the background. Omphalographer (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per Omphalographer. --Rosenzweig τ 15:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Photo apparently published in the Italian magazine TV Sorrisi e canzoni in 1977. Notice that {{PD-1996}} cannot apply because any photo published in 1977 entered in the Italian public domain in January 1, 1998 . Thus, this image is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Whkbvjvblou Zigori (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
fhjkktdg Zigori (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Unused personal image for non-contributor, out of the project scope Nutshinou Talk! 16:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chris Joe Martin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused text logos with no clear referent. I can't find anything notable called "(the) KM's Empire", and "Tequila World Tour" is a common enough joke that it's impossible to pin down.
Omphalographer (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Logo of a unnotable and unremarkable company. 0x0a (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Too small to be useful, additionally made by a user blocked on many WMF wikis for inappropriate edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete delete per nom, too small, uploaded by globally banned LTA. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio, it's a very small thumbnail version of https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/Young-bearded-entrepreneur%252C-business-coach-in-formal-wear-having-coaching-sess/417358795 Belbury (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems pretty obviously some AI generated media (but I'm not expert), additionally made by a user blocked on many WMF wikis for inappropriate edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete delete per nom, AS (Artificial Stupidity), uploaded by globally banned LTA. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
1939 German bank note, one of the designers died in 1998. Undelete in 2069 Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already in the PD in Germany with {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, but still protected in the US (URAA) until the end of 2034. Undelete in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ilikechickenwings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Text-only content, out of the project scope
Nutshinou Talk! 20:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Patricio Avendaño (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused, bizarre computer-generated images and abstract artwork; no educational use case.
- File:Watona1.png
- File:Watona.png
- File:Bendisuone de la buena.png
- File:Wizard comunist beat maker.jpg
- File:El epizootio final.jpg
- File:Comunist frog.png
Omphalographer (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
File:I-want-to-see-the-chemical-structure-of-the-drug-3-ZR7laVgfT1KDA3qbHZFB1w-F3RlpZLqTB6t8UlhwsCR-w.jpg
[edit]
Out of scope: nonsense chemical diagram. AI image generators are not competent to produce this type of technical diagram. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete , strong support for deletion, AS (Artificial Stupidity) again. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The chemistry is nonsense. Marbletan (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused AI-generated image of an anthropomorphic bear indoors (perhaps a pub). No obvious educational use. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete AS (Artificial Stupidity) Taylor 49 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
1. advertising, 2. small size/low resolution, no exif --> most probably not own work Oo91 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Three different images, two of which were uploaded as "corrected" versions (see file history). Does not seem like a serious or meaningful contribution, at least from what I can tell. Delete as COM:WEBHOST? Or restore the first "version", as it's the least useless of the three? Sinigh (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks educational value. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 15:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The image is not on the given flickr source. Leoboudv (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist Matt Johnson is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist Jacek Jarnuszkiewicz is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Bulgaria, artist Vyacheslav Klykov died in 2006 A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Romania A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The channel seems legitime (at least it has 1.7M subscribers), but this particular video is a compilation of other videos, so it is not clear they own the copyright of the original video this frame belongs to. Günther Frager (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio. Odd crop, no metadata, and the uploader's other upload was just CSD F1'ed as a crop of a photo from Instagram. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Also:
I doubt that this is a US government work. It is written by Biden in his private capacity as candidate, and uses his private letterhead, not that of the White House. Sandstein (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems stupid to me to delete something as significant as this, historically! Ibn Juferi (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Commons cannot host copyrighted materials regardless of impact or importance. Di (they-them) (talk), Di (they-them) (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, as said. --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does this have to be deleted as it is not an official US government work? LunaticBFF58 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment According to what Donald Trump and his defense lawyers said in the various recent/current trials, this should be considered executive office material. -- 65.92.247.96 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Source(s)? This might be helpful to see, since it is from legal authorities. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is incorrect, even under the expansive definition of executive action announced in Trump v. United States. A letter written in the capacity of a candidate for the presidency, rather than as the president, is clearly private speech and conduct. Thus, Delete. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Being a candidate isn't government business, so it's not a document prepared by a government employee in the course of their official duties. Assertions in court don't change that. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per copyright.
- QalasQalas (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This also applies to File:Joe Biden steps down from reelection.png, a logical duplicate. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've added the duplicate to the nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment does copyright even apply to a simple letter like this (the depiction, not the content)? The entire text of the letter is repeated at en:Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, so that would have to go as well. Jonas1015119 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- yes it does. the stylistic arrangement of the message is what is copyrighted. the actual contents (aka facts) are not copyrighted. SDudley (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the text is eligible for copyright as a creative work. The typography isn’t; you can’t copyright “black text on white background.” — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Considering I got two exactly opposing responses, could anyone with more experience weigh in? Since PD-Text, PD-Logo and PD-Shape exist my assumption is that the real issue here is the text not the image, which would also affect any extensive quotes in articles. — jonas (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is the text that is copyrighted. The New York Times is just black text on a white background, but the arrangement of the words to convey the facts is what is copyrightable in this work. SDudley (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gabldotink is correct; it is the text, not the image/stylization that is copyrighted. And you are correct that this affects extensive quotes on Wikipedia; excessively long quotes are prohibited, per en:WP:COPYQUOTE. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Considering I got two exactly opposing responses, could anyone with more experience weigh in? Since PD-Text, PD-Logo and PD-Shape exist my assumption is that the real issue here is the text not the image, which would also affect any extensive quotes in articles. — jonas (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the text is eligible for copyright as a creative work. The typography isn’t; you can’t copyright “black text on white background.” — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- yes it does. the stylistic arrangement of the message is what is copyrighted. the actual contents (aka facts) are not copyrighted. SDudley (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Seems like it may be worth considering the recent Supreme Court decision which created a precedent of interpreting "official duties" rather broadly. In that case it was about immunity from prosecution, but wouldn't the implication be a letter by the president about his presidency would be part of his "official duties", broadly construed? And thus in the public domain? No strong opinion, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not a SCOTUS expert, but copyrights law and presidential immunity are not the same sets of laws. Bohbye (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The letter is about his presidential campaign, not his presidency. He does not have an official duty to run or not run for president. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- In Trump v. United States the question (at least as it relates to official vs. unofficial acts) was whether communicating with state officials about the process of the election and certification of the result was an official or campaign act. It seems much more clear cut that communicating his intent not to accept the DNC's nomination is not an official act. It is not something the Constitution gives the President the exclusive power to do, quite to the contrary, non-Presidents do it all the time (in fact, as far as the Constitution is concerned, I think it is in the power of anyone to accept or not accept a nomination, even if they are not eligible for the presidency). Putting it on personal letterhead and communicating it via @JoeBiden rather than @Potus also underscores that this is not an official act of POTUS. -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Doesn't this count as simple text? It can't be copyrighted. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you count this as simple text, simple text could be copyrighted. The formulation of this text is far from trivial. Janhrach (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It counts as simple geometry and text, doesn't it? All it really is text in Serif, out of all fonts on a white piece of paper, and the signature can't be copyrighted, otherwise the file that shows Joe Biden's signature should be deleted. Wheatley2 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- His signature is just the words "Joe Biden", which is too short and simple to meet the threshold of originality, and is not copyrightable. But a full page of political rhetoric is definitely above the threshold and copyrightable. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. Wheatley2 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- His signature is just the words "Joe Biden", which is too short and simple to meet the threshold of originality, and is not copyrightable. But a full page of political rhetoric is definitely above the threshold and copyrightable. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- It counts as simple geometry and text, doesn't it? All it really is text in Serif, out of all fonts on a white piece of paper, and the signature can't be copyrighted, otherwise the file that shows Joe Biden's signature should be deleted. Wheatley2 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you count this as simple text, simple text could be copyrighted. The formulation of this text is far from trivial. Janhrach (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - What about File:Kamala Harris statement.jpg? Isn't that in the same situation as these files? SuperGrey (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Not a work of US government. Melmann (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Info: File:Kamala Harris statement.jpg should probably also be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete Per COM:OOS "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere" At least crop to his signature, but that would probably be COM:NOTUSED. I also nominated the other image for deletion. 174.92.25.207 13:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP The letter is still written by a current President, regardless of which letterhead it is written on. It is also historic in scale and this should be kept for generations to come. Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not all works of someone who happens to be the President are free from copyright.
- Just because something is historic doesn't mean it's free from copyright. 185.62.159.164 17:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep due to medium/manner of publication. It was posted on his official Twitter/X account, not his personal one (if he even has a personal one). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- that is his personal account, @POTUS would be the official one — jonas (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The "X" bio says it's official though. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Twitter bio of @JoeBiden says "Official account is @POTUS.", meaning that @JoeBiden is not his official government account. Having separate political and governmental accounts on Twitter is pretty standard-fare for high-level politicians. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The "X" bio says it's official though. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- that is his personal account, @POTUS would be the official one — jonas (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not a US government work. Use of his personal letterhead instead of presidential letterhead makes this clear. This has nothing to do with his government duties; it's all about his presidential campaign, which he runs (or, ran) in his capacity as a private citizen. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, as above, it's clearly a substantial work that could attract copyright. The image itself (e.g. font, layout, etc) is also not being used for comment, merely the text within it, so only the text could be quoted (on WP) (also following fair use).
- This could be closed before the 7 day period as well, the Keep votes are claiming it's historic, and should be kept (which isn't a reason to violate copyright) or that because he's currently POTUS it's not copyrightable (but it was not produced in his capacity as POTUS, so that argument is DoA). 185.62.159.164 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Wheatley2's arguments above. That Coptic Guy (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not simple text and not from a government account, per arguments by IagoQnsi. The "it's historic" arguments don't really work here. reppoptalk 04:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Although it may not be US government’s work, the image is still of historical significance and should be kept as such. Hadjnix (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It will be of historical significance in a few decades. Just like how the German Empire sent a message to Mexico to declare war on USA during WW1. Hadjnix (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Rhetorical question.) Under which license or PD tag could we keep the file? As you said, it may not be US government’s work, hence {{PD-USGov}} tags don’t apply. --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The argument doesn't work now because it is currently up on Commons now. It's not a government work, and it's not simple text, it's multiple paragraphs. reppoptalk 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately I think this falls into the clearly "not a presidential duty" part of Biden's productive capacity, and outside the US PD definition. File should be moved to the wikis using it under fair use, or the text quoted directly in the various articles in use, Sadads (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with those who have argued about this letter not falling under the capacity of official presidential duties, for the following reasons:
- It was posted to his personal Twitter/X account, not the POTUS account
- The document was not posted to www.whitehouse.gov, as far as I can tell, indicating that the White House does not consider this an official communication.
- This is a product of candidate Biden, not President Biden. Thus, I agree with @Sadads that it be moved to local wikis under fair use claims, because it is a historical document and still illustrative of the subject-matter. Packer1028 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is private information. I should don't want to see Joe Biden as President. 47.234.198.142 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyright violation. Not government work. Bohbye (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: document historique. - C'est moi (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It is recommended that the authorship of the document be discussed with WMF staff. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- In this particular case I am in agreement. Let the WMF sort it out. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree – authorship in itself is not relevant. What is relevant is that if this document was written as a part of official duties. And there is a pretty-strong consensus against this. Janhrach (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per discussion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The better argument, in my opinion, is that this document is not "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" (i.e. the document is copyrighted). 17 U.S.C. § 101. Indeed, Joe Biden could have written the a similar letter (excluding his accomplishments) in 2020, when he did not hold office, but was running for his current office. There are also legal questions about whether the President is an "officer or employee" of the United States Government. But we need not decide these; because there is significant doubt as to whether this letter is in the public domain, it must be deleted. See COM:PCP. Finally, Commons does not host files that are not properly licensed because they have historic value; Commons does not allow fair use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{No permission since|month=July|day=21|year=2024}}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Davidfirth26 (talk · contribs)
[edit]{{No permission since|month=July|day=21|year=2024}}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pitomadome (talk · contribs)
[edit]{{No permission since|month=July|day=21|year=2024}}
- File:Oleg Ataeff 2.jpg
- File:Monarbre's merch with controversial print.jpg
- File:Yoni Sadovay and Oleg Ataeff.jpg
- File:Oleg Ataeff.jpg
- File:Monarbre's logo variation.jpg
- File:Cover art for "L'Apôtre Pierre" by Monarbre.png
- File:Le Portail.png
- File:Logo of Monarbre.jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
(suspected) license violation (audio) --2003:ED:D708:758D:DE2:BBFF:F11A:F671 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The User:Azimronnie appears to be a "dummy" (sock puppet) and has never responded to various deletion requests. A suspected sock puppet is the double winner of the Folk Challenge/2024 and receives double prize money for first places (best video & best image (please check the ongoing discussion): Check-User? --2003:ED:D708:758D:DE2:BBFF:F11A:F671 17:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This IP user seems to be targeting winners of Wiki Loves Folklore and causing vandalism on pages relates to Wiki Loves Folklore project as well as users associated with it. Kindly stop vandalism or you will be reported. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's concerns about licensing for the audio track are valid. The song is "Steal Away - Reprise" by Robert W. Fredere (Youtube), and does not appear to be freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please check the IP's behind both accounts (July 14/15, 2024); there might perhaps be "surprises". --2003:ED:D708:753F:CDDF:333:C09:7CA4 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re: @User:Tiven2240 Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! --2003:ED:D708:753F:CDDF:333:C09:7CA4 10:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (INFO: @User:RockyMasum "created" User Azimronnie: (sock-puppet?)) --2003:ED:D708:753F:5C0B:6DB:C061:50D6 16:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Omphalographer - Re.: ..."and does not appear to be freely licensed". - What are the consequences? User:Azimronnie won't report and his "creator" User:RockyMasum probably won't either. - ...maybe another new video-upload like the winning folk-video/2024 by User:Azimronnie, alias User:RockyMasum? --2003:ED:D708:7577:9978:5995:49C0:C57C 08:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- ℗© 2016 Robert W Fredere Music : Service --2003:ED:D708:7577:9978:5995:49C0:C57C 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's concerns about licensing for the audio track are valid. The song is "Steal Away - Reprise" by Robert W. Fredere (Youtube), and does not appear to be freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- This IP user seems to be targeting winners of Wiki Loves Folklore and causing vandalism on pages relates to Wiki Loves Folklore project as well as users associated with it. Kindly stop vandalism or you will be reported. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious license violation (audio) and no reaction from the two involved and informed accounts: @User:Azimronnie alias @ User:RockyMasum (creator of Azimronnie - but User:RockyMasum is still in action). --2003:ED:D708:75EE:ADAE:55C6:EF00:BCED 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- (It looks like the Commons Folk challange/2024 (double-winner: @User:Azimronnie alias @User:RockyMasum) has been manipulated by interested/involved users --2003:ED:D708:7540:A17E:5027:2ABD:1D4A 06:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) )
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Currency pages on COM:SENEGAL and COM:MALI state that copyright status of CFA Franc is unknown. Should be deleted per COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:10000 frank cfa UEMOA b.jpg is also affected. Abzeronow (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:DW: Unknown source of the portrait of Queen Elizabeth II A1Cafel (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; also significant text. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Trexmurase
[edit]- File:E0EusYqVUAUxexA.jpg
- File:ティラノサウルスの視野 検証1.png
- File:論文Binocular vision in theropod dinosaursに基づくティラノサウルス.png
- File:論文 Binocular vision in theropod dinosaursに基づくティラノサウルス 2.png
- File:論文 Binocular vision in theropod dinosaursに基づくティラノサウルス 3.png
These images were uploaded solely to support the uploader's theory that Tyrannosaurus was incapable of binocular vision. Apparently this is created to make it against binocular vision model in Stevens (2004).[3] In Japanese Wikipedia this user continues to edit Tyrannosaurus article only to propose that is not capable of binocular vision.[4] This is w:WP:FRINGE and w:Wikipedia:NOTHERE, those uploads should be removed. There is no credit for this skull model in the first place, so there is a potential copyright violation. --Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, it is clear that the model used must come from somewhere. In addition to the fact that it is clearly violating the terms of w:WP:FRINGE Levi bernardo (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded as own work, but image appears on numerous websites, eg. Amazon.com DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PhotofitEntertainment (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK TKO 寶琳 Po Lam MCP 新都城中心 Metro City Plaza mall 海港酒家 Victoria Harbour Seafood Restaurant menu roast food October 2021 SS2 02.jpg
[edit]
Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned with whether this photo of a plush Grogu and two plush Porgs in a cage is considered a derived work. DS (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose De minimis --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete. This is not de minimis; the plush toys are central to the image. If the cage had been empty, the photographer wouldn't have taken the photo. Omphalographer (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-free image improperly uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mural installed in 1996 in Beaune, France where there is no freedom of panorama. Günther Frager (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mural installed in 1996 in Beaune, France where there is no freedom of panorama. Günther Frager (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mural installed in 1996 in Beaune, France where there is no freedom of panorama. Günther Frager (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Graffiti installed in Rue Ordener in Paris. Note that there is no freedom of panorama in France. Günther Frager (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio © Hans Ziertmann - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- My Bad! It was not supposed to be uploaded then. Here's where it comes from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120619113839/http://www.kraeuter-kuehne.de/filialen/ Vollgesund (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Émile Faynot
[edit]Paintings by French painter Emile Faynot (1878-1962). They are still copyrighted in its country of origin (70 years pma). Notice that all of them were uploaded by the same user, but without any proof they were published simultaneously in the US. We can undelete them in 2033, as they were created between 1910 and 1940 (there are a couple without creation date, but are likely from the same period).
- File:Aux Verts Fuseaux de la Semoy et de la Meuse.png
- File:Bruges, Emile Faynot.jpg
- File:Emile Faynot, Beaune.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Bruges.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Eglise de Mont-devant-Sassey.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Eglise de Saintines.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Laifour.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Marville.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Naux.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Paysage des Ardennes.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Revin.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Sorendal.png
- File:Emile Faynot, Tournavaux.png
Günther Frager (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This is my picture..please delete it Soesie112 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This is my picture. Please delete it Soesie112 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This is my picture. Please delete it. Soesie112 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This is my picture. Please delete it Soesie112 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no metadata likely copyvio just like other uploads Waqar💬 07:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no Exif all user's uploads are most likely copyvio Waqar💬 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Single (remaining) uploading by the user. No EXIF-data (or no satisfactory EXIF-data). Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Тимур Тимерханов (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work by a new user. DWs, old photos and photos with no exif, PCP
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 03.jpg
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 01.jpg
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 02.jpg
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 3.jpg
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 2.jpg
- File:Нурманбетов Тынчтыкбек Асанкулович 1.jpg
- File:Тынчтыбек.jpg
- File:Jyldyz023.jpg
- File:Jyldyz021.jpg
- File:Jyldyz022.jpg
- File:Jyldyz020.jpg
- File:Jyldyz019.jpg
- File:Jyldyz018.jpg
- File:Jyldyz016.jpg
- File:Jyldyz017.jpg
- File:Jyldyz015.jpg
- File:Jyldyz013.jpg
- File:Jyldyz014.jpg
- File:Jyldyz012.jpg
- File:Jyldyz011.jpg
- File:Jyldyz010.jpg
- File:Jyldyz009.jpg
- File:Jyldyz007.jpg
- File:Jyldyz008.jpg
- File:Jyldyz001.jpg
- File:Jyldyz004.jpg
- File:Jyldyz005.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arashkhann1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work, at least one is an album cover - see https://www.ganja2music.com/958051/arash-khan-bad-akhlagh/
Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
most likely copyvio no Exif low resolution and the background seems edited definitely not own work Waqar💬 14:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fajria Derbash (talk · contribs)
[edit]no metadata some of them are low quality so likely seems copyvio not own work.
- File:أصيل المقصبي.jpg
- File:سند الكوري.jpg
- File:جواد رزق.jpg
- File:فريق النصر.jpg
- File:علي سلامة.jpg
- File:خالد حسين.jpg
- File:فوزي العيساوي.jpg
- File:مدرب ليبي أسامة لحمادي.jpg
- File:فريق النصر الليبي.jpg
- File:ممثل ليبي.jpg
- File:الممثل الليبي.jpg
Waqar💬 14:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markokurisoo (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Spingi Logo.png is promotional. Out of project scope.
Other images are not own works. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.
- File:Spingi Logo.png
- File:Inbanki peakontor.jpg
- File:Lauatennis Inbanki kontoris.jpg
- File:Inbank asutajad.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Potential Copyright violation and no page is linked to this file Bdgzczy (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary unused duplicate Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, inherently redundant. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
essentially unused and not required — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Inferior to File:Toni Talk Show Logo.png. This nominated file has lower reso (~320px) than the other file which is at ~500px. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Please note that a proper source is to be given for the surviving copy of the logo. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is Out of Scope due to being a vacation picture of a person rather than photo usefully illustrating the species Pinus arisata. MtBotany (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep "Vacation pictures" may or may not be in scope depending on what they illustrate. Looks to be an ok photo of the type of tree with the standing person giving sense of scale. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:PERSONAL as the depicted person is significantly covering the object of interest. To give a sense of scale, the person should stand beside the object of interest and not in front of it. We have plenty of good photographs of bristlecone pines. The image is unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Unidentified body of water, educational value is minimal. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Am I wrong in assuming that categories such as Category:Water reflections of trees in unidentified locations mean that images like these are indeed within scope? Sinigh (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. "Water reflections of trees in unidentified locations" may be in scope if they either 1)have artistic of significant illustrative merit or 2)also show some other in scope subject. I don't think this one does; we have many other superior images of trees reflected in water. Only upload by user, who described the images as "hi". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Posting pictures of nature without identifying the location are rarely useful. I agree with Abzeronow and Infrogmation here. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Author: Michael. Has he given permission? 186.173.21.147 02:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: This is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:RRunkel.jpg. This requires a written permission passed to our support team. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mike Rohsopht as no permission (No permission since) Mike Rohsopht (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
From File talk:Torsten Bell.png:
This picture was taken from twitter, therefore permission for reuse is implied by twitter's terms and conditions. Twitter refers to 'X'.
See twitter terms and conditions "There are Intellectual Property Licenses in these Terms: You retain ownership and rights to any of your Content you post or share, and you provide us with a broad, royalty-free license to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. Conversely, we provide you a license to use the software we provide as part of the Services, such as the X mobile application, solely for the purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services. " From https://x.com/en/tos Friendly Engineer (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Posting an image to Twitter obviously does not automatically release it under an attribution-only license. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted per Agence France Presse v. Morel as copyvio. In summary, the Twitter/X terms of use give you the opportunity to cite or embed a Twitter posting but not to exploit parts of it. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is no longer accurate. The colors of the county of Verampio are entirely different, it was a mistake that I made when designing the arms. I went into official documentation and discovered the correct tincture. Daniel Day Carter (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request of the uploader and as the file is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is no longer accurate. The colors of the county of Verampio are entirely different, it was a mistake that I made when designing the arms. I went into official documentation and discovered the correct tincture. Daniel Day Carter (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request of the uploader and as the file is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is no longer accurate. The colors of the county of Verampio are entirely different, it was a mistake that I made when designing the arms. I went into official documentation and discovered the correct tincture. Daniel Day Carter (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request of the uploader and as the file is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is no longer accurate. The colors of the county of Verampio are entirely different, it was a mistake that I made when designing the arms. I went into official documentation and discovered the correct tincture. Daniel Day Carter (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request of the uploader and as the file is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This file is no longer accurate. The colors of the county of Verampio are entirely different, it was a mistake that I made when designing the arms. I went into official documentation and discovered the correct tincture. Daniel Day Carter (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request of the uploader and as the file is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo does not depict Corazon Miller at work. Would prefer another work related photo to appear here. Mmil094 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This photo was taken at a Royal Society Te Apārangi event by a professional photographer and openly licensed by the Royal Society. There's no requirement for photos to be taken of people at work, and no reason to delete it. If you are the subject of this photo and don't like it then perhaps you could facilitate the upload of a photo that you do like before nominating this one for deletion? If you are not the subject of the photo, then what is your reason for preferring a photo we do not have to one we do? DrThneed (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The top part is not original and we have better versions of the bottom part (e.g. File:Black Pirate Poster 2.jpg). — Racconish 💬 07:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
no evidence of free licence, photos on IMDb.com are licensed directly from the license holders and can't be sublicensed so not in public domain. Waqar💬 07:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination as copyvio. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: This is indeed a poorly-created gallery. But deleting it would break the interwiki links to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Previous deletion request was closed as kept because removing the gallery page would break interwiki links. That issue has since been fixed, so now this page can safely be removed. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No need for a degenerated "gallery" with one image. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There never was an issue with breaking interwiki links to Commons, the category is already linked to from Wikidata so the deletion of the nearly-empty gallery would have just changed incoming links to point to the category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per Mike Peel and the outcome of the Village Pump discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The gallery is not linked from WikiData, but the cat is. No problem with deletion of the degenerated "gallery". Taylor 49 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Just for the record: until yesterday the gallery was indeed linked from the Wikidata item, but it was changed to the category, see history of Q958784, so AFBorchert did have a point. JopkeB (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: I am deleting this now as the interwiki links are gone and there is an unanimous consent in this regard. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
definitely not own work no metadata low resolution and blur seems to be downloaded from the internet possibly copyvio Waqar💬 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
not own work no metadata low resolution and the cropping horizontal line on the top is visible likely copyvio Waqar💬 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Questionable if this specific logo is indeed under the given license. The logo is claimed to be created at a date that is more than a decade older than the actual creation of the university itself. At the same time, legitimately questions could be asked regarding the fact that the university has kept for almost a century the very same logo that it had on the date of its creation. All these need clarification, for sure. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 09:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mural installed in 1996 in Beaune, France where there is no freedom of panorama. Günther Frager (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Zweifelsfrei fehllizenziert von monioland Berlin (Monpland ist einr Band) Urheber kann aber nur eine Einzelperson sein Lutheraner (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: Erfindung eines Vereins für PR-Zwecke, kein offizielles Wappen GerritR (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Photo taken in Italy in 1977, and published in the newspaper Corriere della Sera. The photo is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2073. --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Upload was created in error and is functionally a duplicate of File:Sacramento Regional Transit 2024.jpg ReneeWrites (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Support, since I intended it to be a transparent version of that file anyway. It has since been superseded by the nearly-identically named File:Sacramento Regional Transit 2024 (transparent background).png, anyways.
- Thank your for nominating this for deletion!
- - SleepTrain456 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo published in Italy in 1977. Notice that the usage of {{PD-1996}} is wrong because copyright protection in Italy for simple photograph is 20 years ppd. That is, it was copyrighted in its country of origin until Jarnuary 1, 1998. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2073. --Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Image taken from a film film released in 1977 and still copyrighted in France, its country of origin. Notice that this a derivative work of File:Patrick Dewaere Aurore Clément.jpg a file deleted because it has missing permission and uploaded by a user with plenty of copyvios. Unless we have a explicit premisison from the actual photographer we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The source from the Dutch National Archives states that it has an unknown copyright holder (Auteursrechthebbende onbekend). Notice that their T&C specify that only the images with a download link and an explict CC0 marking have the CC0 license. This image satisfy neither of these conditions. Moreover, on the download tab it states: U kunt de foto niet downloaden omdat deze niet rechtenvrij is. (You cannot download the photo because it is not royalty-free.) Günther Frager (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Superstraight
[edit]All of these images are for a fictional flag having to do with a fake, transphobic sexual orientation that never went anywhere outside of a single online message board. There's no reason we need to host images of fictional flags for every random meme or online message board posting out there. In fact we don't as the upwards of three hundred deletion requests for fictional flags that were deleted in Category:Fictitious symbol related deletion requests/deleted shows. The clear consensus is against hosting these types of images on Commons. So they should be deleted as OOS since they clearly serve absolutely no educational value what-so-ever.
- File:Alternative Super Straight Flagge.png
- File:Super Straight Flag.png
- File:Super Straight Flagge.png
- File:Superstraight Flag (Flagicon).png
- File:Superstraight Flag Flagicon.jpg
- File:Superstraight Flag.png
- File:SuperStraightFlag.jpg
- File:SuperStraightFlag.png
- File:SuperStraightFlag.svg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep to start with, at least one is COM:INUSE. Next, if by “a single message board” you mean /pol/, a very notable board on the very notable website 4chan, then that is enough to both make it marginally notable and notable enough for commons’ extremely low standards. Finally, there is a difference between a made-up thing that originated outside WM and a thing made up one day. This is the former. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only in use file I saw was being used in a 2 old draft article that clearly isn't going to be put in mainspace anytime soon, if ever. So I don't think the usage is a valid reason to keep the image. As far as the where this orginated from, your correct that 4chan is notable. That obviously doesn't mean every single random thing that gets posted there is notable, eductional, or otherwise worth hosting on Commons though. Files don't get a free pass from Commons:Project scope just because someone might have posted them to 4chan once. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- File:Super Straight Flag.svg is in extensive use (and if you game the system by going to every single wiki it’s on and removing it you will be reported). You should actually check these things before indiscriminately nominating everything in a category. And I don’t get why you seem to think this is just some random thing that never received any media attention— it’s discussed on the w:/pol/ article of enwiki— I quote, “ Colors associated with ‘super straight’, often used in the form of flags, were black and orange.” (Emphasis mine) It’s also discussed extensively at w:Straight flag, where one of these files is in use. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have missed checking that one. I don't plan on removing it from anywhere and I'd appreciate it if you laid off the needlessly confrontational, accusatory tone about this. Its really not helpful. I explained why I don't think its a thing in the other DR. Plenty of random, benial facts are mentioned in Wikimedia articles. That doesn't make them "things" though, whatever that means. Do you have any evidence of these flags actually beinf IRL or refered to outside of the transphobic angle? If not then at least IMO these images clearly aren't worth keeping. Although their eductional usefulness would still be questionable regardless. But actual usage of the flags IRL would at least be better then your claim that they should be kept simply "because 4chan." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are living in some kind of alternate universe where a pride flag must be used in real life by some kind of legitimate sexual or gender minority to be in-scope. I have literally presented extensive evidence that these are non-trivially COM:INUSE and you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over when they have nothing to do with what I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you really going to argue this is at all comparable to the pride flag? Come on. You know they aren't at all comparable to each other. Regardless, just because one image is in use doesn't automatically mean the other 9 images I nominated for deletion should be kept. You clearly have no actual arguement for keeping the imaged outside of making bad faithed, personal accusations though. I hear what your saying perfectly fine. I just think your wrong. Get over it and spare me the defense bad attitude about this. There's really no need for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- “If superstraight isn’t a pride flag then you must delete” isn’t a coherent argument. I really don’t care what happens to the unused ones as long as the ones that are actually being legitimately used are kept. That’s literally all I’m vouching for here. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good thing none of the reasons I said the images should be deleted have anything to do with the pride flag then. Your the one who brought it up to begin with. The only noncoherent argument here is you bringing up the pride flag and then treating me like it has anything to do with why I think the images should be deleted. "the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation." That's literally all you've been doing. I guess there's nothing more to say about it if you don't care about the unused files being deleted though. Although I think the one that's in use should be deleted to, but I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this. Maybe drop it on your end going forward in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I’m still completely baffled about why you think your reasons to delete make any sense whatsoever, but I’m more baffled by your resistance to acknowledging COM:INUSE applies to File:Super Straight Flag.svg and multiple others. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since your apparently incapable of dropping this for some reason how exaxtly is me saying I just missed that the one file was being used in a Wikipedia article not an acknowlegement of COM:INUSE? With the other file, I could be wrong but I thought COM:INUSE didn't apply in cases were the image is being used on a draft article that has essentially no chance of ever being put into mainspace. The standard here isn't just "use" after all. There's also "realistic utility" and that's kind of negated by it being used in a draft article that's been stalled out for multiple years. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to convince me that you actually understand what INUSE is, just remove File:Super Straight Flag.svg, please. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll remove it if you promise not to come in so hot about things next time ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to convince me that you actually understand what INUSE is, just remove File:Super Straight Flag.svg, please. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since your apparently incapable of dropping this for some reason how exaxtly is me saying I just missed that the one file was being used in a Wikipedia article not an acknowlegement of COM:INUSE? With the other file, I could be wrong but I thought COM:INUSE didn't apply in cases were the image is being used on a draft article that has essentially no chance of ever being put into mainspace. The standard here isn't just "use" after all. There's also "realistic utility" and that's kind of negated by it being used in a draft article that's been stalled out for multiple years. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I’m still completely baffled about why you think your reasons to delete make any sense whatsoever, but I’m more baffled by your resistance to acknowledging COM:INUSE applies to File:Super Straight Flag.svg and multiple others. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good thing none of the reasons I said the images should be deleted have anything to do with the pride flag then. Your the one who brought it up to begin with. The only noncoherent argument here is you bringing up the pride flag and then treating me like it has anything to do with why I think the images should be deleted. "the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation." That's literally all you've been doing. I guess there's nothing more to say about it if you don't care about the unused files being deleted though. Although I think the one that's in use should be deleted to, but I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this. Maybe drop it on your end going forward in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- “If superstraight isn’t a pride flag then you must delete” isn’t a coherent argument. I really don’t care what happens to the unused ones as long as the ones that are actually being legitimately used are kept. That’s literally all I’m vouching for here. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you really going to argue this is at all comparable to the pride flag? Come on. You know they aren't at all comparable to each other. Regardless, just because one image is in use doesn't automatically mean the other 9 images I nominated for deletion should be kept. You clearly have no actual arguement for keeping the imaged outside of making bad faithed, personal accusations though. I hear what your saying perfectly fine. I just think your wrong. Get over it and spare me the defense bad attitude about this. There's really no need for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are living in some kind of alternate universe where a pride flag must be used in real life by some kind of legitimate sexual or gender minority to be in-scope. I have literally presented extensive evidence that these are non-trivially COM:INUSE and you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over when they have nothing to do with what I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have missed checking that one. I don't plan on removing it from anywhere and I'd appreciate it if you laid off the needlessly confrontational, accusatory tone about this. Its really not helpful. I explained why I don't think its a thing in the other DR. Plenty of random, benial facts are mentioned in Wikimedia articles. That doesn't make them "things" though, whatever that means. Do you have any evidence of these flags actually beinf IRL or refered to outside of the transphobic angle? If not then at least IMO these images clearly aren't worth keeping. Although their eductional usefulness would still be questionable regardless. But actual usage of the flags IRL would at least be better then your claim that they should be kept simply "because 4chan." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- File:Super Straight Flag.svg is in extensive use (and if you game the system by going to every single wiki it’s on and removing it you will be reported). You should actually check these things before indiscriminately nominating everything in a category. And I don’t get why you seem to think this is just some random thing that never received any media attention— it’s discussed on the w:/pol/ article of enwiki— I quote, “ Colors associated with ‘super straight’, often used in the form of flags, were black and orange.” (Emphasis mine) It’s also discussed extensively at w:Straight flag, where one of these files is in use. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The only in use file I saw was being used in a 2 old draft article that clearly isn't going to be put in mainspace anytime soon, if ever. So I don't think the usage is a valid reason to keep the image. As far as the where this orginated from, your correct that 4chan is notable. That obviously doesn't mean every single random thing that gets posted there is notable, eductional, or otherwise worth hosting on Commons though. Files don't get a free pass from Commons:Project scope just because someone might have posted them to 4chan once. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. In use in at least 13 pages across all projects, including Catalan-, Persian-, Italian-, and English-language Wikipedias, besides of course Wikidata. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of them being the mainspace, just noting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I just looked and most of them aren't being used. One file File:Super Straight Flag.png is being used in a draft that's been there for 2 years and I'm pretty sure we delete images in that case since it doesn't have "realistic utility" at that point. Then there's a couple of random uses with other files in bot galleries, which again, doesn't meet the whole ""realistic utility" thing. That's all the usage I can find though. So can you point out which file is used in at least 13 pages across all projects since I'm not seeing it on my end for some reason? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:SuperStraightFlag.svg as a notable internet meme. Delete the rest as not useful--Trade (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all, even if some of them aren't currently being used, there's no reason not to keep them for future use. JoePhin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Before Adamant1 tries to argue that “most of them aren’t in use”, again, I’ll point out that since most of them are functionally identical to ones in use they’re kind of inherently in-scope. The only legitimate reasons to delete them are redundancy (which isn’t a particularly strong argument anyway) and being in undesirable formats for simple geometry like PNG/JPG over SVG (again also a weak argument). Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to argue that, actually. Thanks for assuming though. Honestly, I don't expect anything even slightly related to sex or gender issues to be deleted, or at least for anyone to vote that way, but it what it is. I still think the images should be deleted regardless. Maybe at least leave the mind reading at the door next time though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep some are identical and kinda useless, but others are not. MikutoH (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Superstraight
[edit]Unused close variants of File:Super Straight Flag.png or File:SuperStraightFlag.png.
- File:Alternative Super Straight Flagge.png
- File:Super Straight Flagge.png
- File:Superstraight Flag (Flagicon).png
- File:Superstraight Flag Flagicon.jpg
- File:Superstraight Flag.png
- File:SuperStraightFlag.jpg
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also both PNGs have even higher-quality SVGs, which are more than sufficient. ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Seal has unknown date, and CoA have to be before 1947 based on Template:PD-Cuba CubanoBoi (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also
- File:Flag of Communist Afghanistan (Fake).png, fictional unused flag CubanoBoi (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused and inferior in size/quality to file:ACP LOGO(5000x5000).png The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, as long as the photo is not deleted, go a ahead and delete the gallery (I don't know who created it, isn't this an automatic thing?). The photo should be kept, of course.--Nina (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the photo will be kept. You can find it (and more) in Category:Carl Correns. No, gallery pages are not created automatically, according to the history you created it yourself (that is why you've got an alert). JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't even know hot to do that (anymore :). What if you add the other photo of Correns? Still not enough to build a gallery? --Nina (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, indeed. And the category has only seven files, so there is no need to have a gallery page as well. It just makes sense to have a gallery page if there are a lot of files and/or subcategories, then a gallery is a great tool to create order out of chaos. But not for so few, then the category is enough. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, go ahead and delete it, please. --Nina (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. I have no authority to delete a page, an administrator will do so. JopkeB (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, go ahead and delete it, please. --Nina (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, indeed. And the category has only seven files, so there is no need to have a gallery page as well. It just makes sense to have a gallery page if there are a lot of files and/or subcategories, then a gallery is a great tool to create order out of chaos. But not for so few, then the category is enough. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't even know hot to do that (anymore :). What if you add the other photo of Correns? Still not enough to build a gallery? --Nina (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the photo will be kept. You can find it (and more) in Category:Carl Correns. No, gallery pages are not created automatically, according to the history you created it yourself (that is why you've got an alert). JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, gallery is deleted, photo is unaffected. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category has not so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. The category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
KeepComment It has more than one image. I see what you mean but there are a bunch of gallery pages with only a few images. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- This is not about other pages.
- Why should this page be kept? What is the added value of it above the category, that also has three files? JopkeB (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has now three images, the same as in the category. Again: What is the added value? JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: gallery is not needed. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I accidentally included my Location in this Wikimedia Upload, Please delete this. H982Falklands (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Useful photo. Revdel lat/long and perhaps altitude from EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader request. Private information included in error (You can't revdel location data). --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and consensus on the galleries in proposals. --Sadads (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sadads (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The page has been kept because it is a proper gallery page with enough photos. --JopkeB (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I redirected the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carex_secta&action=history -- per concensus at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Redirect_undermaintained_Species_Galleries_to_Category_pages , Sadads (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I did not look well, you are right. JopkeB (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to add another picture from his category but couldnt. Sure you know better how to do it. Why dont YOU do it?! 186.173.170.14 06:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not add photos to this gallery page:
- Because it is not my job to take care that such a page meets the standards (that is the job of the person who started a gallery page).
- Because the category only contains seven files, which is not enough to distinguish a gallery pages as meaningful, not even if you would add all these seven images.
- I do not know why your attempt to add another picture to the page caused a failure, it looks good. Did you copy paste the file name (which is best) or typed it? Long ago my ":" gave errors too, but after a while the problem was miraculously solved. JopkeB (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not add photos to this gallery page:
Deleted: not need for a gallery, per nomination, only one photo. --Sadads (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
poor quality, too dark and blurry, there are many better pictures in the category Hryhorivskyi Bir Luda.slominska (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, low quality image, nothing particularly interesting to see ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sadads (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The image has no source. Its provenance is not established and descriptive information is not verifiable (e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with). Included with this deletion request is the duplicate:
Its source also provides no helpful information. It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known. --Cold Season (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. At least one of the files is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Cold Season: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file pages, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: There is NO SOURCE that verifies the images as a public domain image. The fact that we do not know what this image is, means that this falls under the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is definitly not a {{fact disputed}} case. The fact that you closed this without participation in discussion, while waiting for the close statement to provide unilateral counter-arguments is highly inappropriate. --Cold Season (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This is an artwork that remains unidentified. There is no provenance or source that tells us what it is or its public domain status. In conclusion, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Included with this deletion request is the duplicate File:Xiang Yu.png.
To @Ellywa: in the previous deletion request, {{fact disputed}} does not override this. Cold Season (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Cold Season, this image is used 15 times on various Wikipedia articles, in several languages. The other version is used 3 times. Based on this, we cannot delete the image from Commons, based on our policy, as users on Wikipedia are considering the image valuable. The precautionary principle is used only in case a copyright violation might exist. Please ask additional questions on the village pump. I note you have re-nominated the image. In that case another admin will reconsider my decision. Ellywa (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- (1) The deletion request is based on COM:PRP, because there is no information that identifies anything of this artwork and, as such, its public domain status is not established. I am not stating that the incorrectness in file description is the reason for deletion (which you keep using as a straw man argument), but I am explaining why it fails COM:PRP ("to explain more clearly" to you... again, as I shouldn't have assumed that everyone reads between the lines).
- (2) Your mention of COM:EDUSE is irrelevant, as no argument with that as basis was raised here.
- (3) COM:INUSE does not state that image usage is a reason to not delete or to maintain an image. Your argument has no merit. In fact, I hope you understand this instead, me saying that I'm not familiar with such a policy was just an indirect way to say that your claim is wrong (as no policy supports it).
- (4) Your suggestion that the artwork is a "variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg" is incorrect, as it is simply not a scan of the same print. Feel free to overlay them in photoshop and look again, if you can't spot the differences. These are two distinct artworks with their own copyright status and, as such, it does not diminish the onus to establish this image's copyright status.
- In conclusion, I see no credible argument that overrides COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this is not a Qing Dynasty image? What makes you believe there is a chance it's not in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- In other words, you neglect to provide any appropriate evidence of the copyright status (just like her), which violates official policy COM:PS#Evidence.
- Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old without any proof, which violates official policy COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange reply... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- You won't get more discussion from me. See what the closing admin rules. Again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange reply... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep China only awards 50 years protection, so if it is prior to 1974 it is PD. Tineye and Google could not find anyone named as the author or anyone claiming an active copyright or anyone claiming it is newer than 1974. --RAN (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument is counter to the policy COM:PRP: "Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: [...] 5. "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained.""
- Secondly, you provide "ifs" and neglect the burden of proof. See the policy COM:PS#Evidence: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" --Cold Season (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- From this image [5] the chinese text translated by Google reads: "Portrait of Xiang Yu. Source: 'Portraits of Famous People in Chinese History' compiled by the Conservation Department of the Chinese History Museum, published by Straits Literature and Art Publishing House in 2003." So now we have a source for the image: The Chinese History Museum. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
![[5]](https://oss.gjrwls.com/cmsFiles/2024/5/30/20240530031949-9744480c-1556-49fb-8b85-b7040dc4acbb.png){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion, source will be added. This image is obviously a variant of the Portraits of Famous Men, and there is not significant doubt about this being a Qing era print. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I am reopening this DR, as I am allowed to do so. There's some points I want to make here, per the discussions above. This includes the duplicate file File:Xiang Yu.png.
- (1) Assumptions that it looks old are not valid to retain files per Wikimedia policy. Modern artists are able to paint in different art styles and there's many examples hereof. This is in line with the policy COM:PRP: "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."
- (2) The only thing I am requesting here is evidence to confirm the status of the work, which no one so far has provided. This is required per the policy COM:PS#Evidence: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]."
Note: Currently, User:Abzeronow added a reference (a modern book) which he has acknowledged not to have actually consulted (see the user talk page). Neither was it clarified that anyone has consulted it to confirm what's requested before he shut down the discussion above.
- (3) This goes further to COM:DR: "Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies or any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so." --Cold Season (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- As Abzeronow has pointed out in the last closing statement there needs to be "significant" doubt to use COM:PRP as deletion reason. Examples of "significant" doubt would be things like a copyright statement in the EXIF data that contradicts the license under which a file was uploaded on Commons, or there's an author name in the EXIF data that doesn't match the uploader's name, or the uploader has a history of copyvios, or the uploader has uploaded many images that were taken with a lot of different professional cameras and it's unlikely that the uploader owns all those expensive cameras, or the image can be found on the internet where it was published before it was uploaded on Commons. None of this applies here. Of course the above list is not comprehensive and there may be other scenarios that cast "significant" doubt, but it is also the nominator's (i.e. your) responsibility to explain wherein this "significant" lays. A "theoretical" doubt that something "maybe" isn't PD or CC is not enough to reference COM:PRP. The image looks old enough to be PD and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary to establish "significant" doubt about its PD status. In your initial nomination you wrote "It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known" but you didn't provide any URL to that image on any other website to add weight to your argument to make it qualify as "significant" doubt. In your initial nomination you wrote "e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with" (cursive highlighting added by me). Here, you once again made a "theoretical" statement without backing it up with anything. Why do you think that its previous claims were "probably" wrong? Have you found some information that contradicts those claims? Or is it just an "assumption", a "theory" that the claims "might" be incorrect? If you have not found anything that contradicts those claims then what are your doubts based on? Again, "theoretical" assumptions are not enough for PRP, you need to provide "significant" doubt for the file to be deleted under this principle. Nakonana (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a description of the book that is stated to be the source of this image (Google translated and with emphasis added by me: "1. Except for the portrait of Lin Zexu, the portraits of people included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are all cultural relics collected by the National Museum of China. Most of them are hand-painted by painters of the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, and a few are ancient engraved books and rubbings, as well as carved brick statues. 2. The characters range from ancient times to the end of the Qing Dynasty. 3. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are divided into four parts according to their identities. People with multiple identities are included in the most representative part. 4. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are arranged in order of birth and death or dynasty. For those with the same birth year, they are arranged in order of death year. For those whose birth and death years are unknown, they are inserted in the corresponding position according to their activity period. 5. "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" does not include photos of people and works created by modern people." Nakonana (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Constant reopened discussions of this image are disruptive, and admins will have to make a decision about when to end them for good and all, but that's their call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a description of the book that is stated to be the source of this image (Google translated and with emphasis added by me: "1. Except for the portrait of Lin Zexu, the portraits of people included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are all cultural relics collected by the National Museum of China. Most of them are hand-painted by painters of the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, and a few are ancient engraved books and rubbings, as well as carved brick statues. 2. The characters range from ancient times to the end of the Qing Dynasty. 3. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are divided into four parts according to their identities. People with multiple identities are included in the most representative part. 4. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are arranged in order of birth and death or dynasty. For those with the same birth year, they are arranged in order of death year. For those whose birth and death years are unknown, they are inserted in the corresponding position according to their activity period. 5. "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" does not include photos of people and works created by modern people." Nakonana (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- As Abzeronow has pointed out in the last closing statement there needs to be "significant" doubt to use COM:PRP as deletion reason. Examples of "significant" doubt would be things like a copyright statement in the EXIF data that contradicts the license under which a file was uploaded on Commons, or there's an author name in the EXIF data that doesn't match the uploader's name, or the uploader has a history of copyvios, or the uploader has uploaded many images that were taken with a lot of different professional cameras and it's unlikely that the uploader owns all those expensive cameras, or the image can be found on the internet where it was published before it was uploaded on Commons. None of this applies here. Of course the above list is not comprehensive and there may be other scenarios that cast "significant" doubt, but it is also the nominator's (i.e. your) responsibility to explain wherein this "significant" lays. A "theoretical" doubt that something "maybe" isn't PD or CC is not enough to reference COM:PRP. The image looks old enough to be PD and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary to establish "significant" doubt about its PD status. In your initial nomination you wrote "It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known" but you didn't provide any URL to that image on any other website to add weight to your argument to make it qualify as "significant" doubt. In your initial nomination you wrote "e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with" (cursive highlighting added by me). Here, you once again made a "theoretical" statement without backing it up with anything. Why do you think that its previous claims were "probably" wrong? Have you found some information that contradicts those claims? Or is it just an "assumption", a "theory" that the claims "might" be incorrect? If you have not found anything that contradicts those claims then what are your doubts based on? Again, "theoretical" assumptions are not enough for PRP, you need to provide "significant" doubt for the file to be deleted under this principle. Nakonana (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would accept that argument, if that is so per the book, which may have come to light if the closing admin had not callously closed discussion. --Cold Season (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Everything you wrote here, Nakonana, is you trying to reverse the burden of proof. In contrast, the official policy COM:PS#Evidence states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]." It is a simple request that remains unfulfilled. --Cold Season (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are using COM:PRP as your deletion rationale, so let me quote that: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (emphasis NOT added by me) That's what the last closing admin was referring to, but you didn't accept it, so I thought I'll elaborate how that "significant" part is oftentimes interpreted in deletion requests. I didn't attempt to reverse the burden of proof but merely summarized the usual arguments when COM:PRP is brought up. Such deletion requests are oftentimes unsuccessful if the nominating party bases their arguments on assumptions / "theoretical" doubts, which you were doing in your initial nomination and that's why they were unsuccessful. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Everything you wrote here, Nakonana, is you trying to reverse the burden of proof. In contrast, the official policy COM:PS#Evidence states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]." It is a simple request that remains unfulfilled. --Cold Season (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep on with your attempts to reverse the burden of proof. The policy COM:PS#Evidence is clear: It is a requirement for the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that the file is, in fact, suitable for Wikimedia Commons. In the absence of that evidence, the file cannot be retained.
- Your attempt to portray the absence of evidence as not significant is baseless, while each part of my arguments is based on Wikimedia Commons' official policies. --Cold Season (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nakonana has basically explained why I closed it the way I did. COM:PCP is balanced, there needs to be significant doubt about the freedom of a file, and because the uploader neglected to source it to the satisfaction of the uploader, this discussion keeps recurring. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have that many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all one-file galleries please. 186.172.47.194 19:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as no license (No license since) Krd 10:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The logo on the flage is extracted from the Office of the Prime Minister website. Please note that the exact artwork of the government is not a public domain. --Wutkh (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dr.Wiki54 as no source (No source since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: grandfathered old file. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- the author is not specified, the shooting date is not specified, we should consider 120 years from a date and the only one we have is that the portrayed subject died in 1959 so it would be in the public domain in 2079 ZioNicco (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: This was created around 1912, we can undelete this in 2033. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ArcticSeeress as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The original Wikipedia uploader, W:User:Dibi58, originally uploaded the image W:File:Sharmagne-Leland-St-John.jpeg, which was deleted in May 2009 for violation WP's copyright policy. In July, the user uploaded a low-quality version File:Sharm.jpg (which was ported to Commons) and then finally W:File:Sharmagne.jpg. The description of all of these files claims this to be a self-portrait. There is little likelihood that Dibi58 is Sharmagne Leland-St. John. I also found a non-cropped version of the photo at Michael Butler's website (direct link to the image). ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
May be a copyright violation R8cocin8 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: DW of Picasso (died 1973), Lichtenstein died in 1997, Undelete in 2068. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
May be a copyright violation R8cocin8 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Pablo Picasso died in 1973, Undelete in 2044. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted photo of the Central Daily News, see https://tcmb.culture.tw/zh-tw/detail?indexCode=online_metadata&id=2292029 Solomon203 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
All copyvios. Still frame = screenshot, photos taken by Mayar Kotb and by Doa Aly, none of which are own work
- File:Doa Aly.jpg
- File:The End Comes Not For Me.jpg
- File:Only When The Poison Has Gone.jpg
- File:Many Forms of Silence.jpg
- File:Metamorphosis by Doa Aly.jpg
- File:Magnuna.jpg
- File:Still frame from The End Comes Not for Me.jpg
- File:Drawing No. 132.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello,
- All artwork is now updated with source/author Ragy96 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Google finds this on twitter 10 years ago, I think we need VRT Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I found Monica Sabata a few weeks ago and ask her to take a photo of her. She preferred to send me this one which was made by herself. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Robertgarrigos, ask her to contact COM:VRT stating that it's a selfie and she gives permission for the photo to be licensed in such a way as to include its commercial use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Ikan Kekek, but I won't be able to do that. Monica Sabata is a public person here, and I just found her at an event by chance. It was the first time in years I met her in person. I told here what the photo was for and she agreed. Robertgarrigos (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but in that case, since you didn't take the photo and Commons won't just accept your say-so on how she would license the photo, it will unfortunately be deleted (hidden) on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Ikan Kekek, but I won't be able to do that. Monica Sabata is a public person here, and I just found her at an event by chance. It was the first time in years I met her in person. I told here what the photo was for and she agreed. Robertgarrigos (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Robertgarrigos, ask her to contact COM:VRT stating that it's a selfie and she gives permission for the photo to be licensed in such a way as to include its commercial use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Clearly a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertgarrigos This is clearly a screenshot. It was taken from a TV screen? by a mobile phone. Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all, just my mobile phone. I took it myself. Not a good quality, I know, because I was not close to the subject. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Plausibly a zoomed-in photograph taken at an event. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation Cropped.jpeg and potential privacy violation.
Although other people's personal information has been redacted, there are transaction IDs and dates of receipts that may be used to track and doxx irrelevant individuals. These information is also unnecessary and not useful for educational purposes. Plus, this file is only used in the Wikipedia namespace, not in articles. Of course we can redact these information, but as we already have the photo which is specifically used to show the donation record of Thomas Crooks, there is no valid reason to keep this PDF file. See also the relevant discussion. SCP-2000 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The image is available unredacted on a federal government website: it is trivial to search for it on the FEC's website. The source link goes to an unredacted version (click "view image" there). So the doxxing concern seems pointless. This nomination is more or less like saying that it would be doxxing to list the address of the White House as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue.
- I have said before and will say again: this document seems to me to be perfectly in scope. It documents a fact that has figured in the news, and it is a document that there is no reason we cannot host. While use in a Wikipedia article would be a clincher to keep it, non-use is not a reason to delete: a good 90% of what is on Commons is not used in Wikipedia articles. Being a host for Wikipedia is one of Commons' purposes, but only one.
- I helped redact our copy to meet others' concerns, but I thought then and think now that even those concerns were largely without merit for the reason I just stated.
- In terms of whether it is in scope, a comparable case would be Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security card, which as far as I can tell no one has questioned in the decade we have had it posted, and which has even long been used as the example in Identity documents in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Though I was one who suggested deletion, I'm not able to specify a concrete or policy-based reason to delete this. Observations:
- It's so redacted that it's of limited educational value (especially while the complete PD original is freely available)
- Some commenters have questioned whether we got the correct Thomas Crooks with this evidence, so I hope that news sources have done their due diligence on the address/other PII
- Wikipedia policies, such as BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY, while they may be of limited relevance here, are based in US law, and should give us pause: Oswald's long dead, but as recently deceased, BLP (BDP) still applies to Crooks and all other involved parties, IMHO. In fact, Crooks was 17 as of the date of these transactions, so his parents may bear responsibility for it.
- Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe Commons hosts unused PDFs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes we do. Many entire magazines or books, for example. In this case this might not be the best choice of format because it is only one page; it could easily enough be downloaded to a PC and re-uploaded as a JPG or PNG, if there is a consensus to do so, but I believe the discussion here should focus mainly on the content, not the format. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please point to the guidelines that allow Commons to host unused text files? Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content states that "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" are out of scope. Do you figure this is not raw text? I figure the "entire magazines or books," absent illustrations, are, and therefore should be removed from Commons on the basis of the policy I quoted. But of course admins can choose to disregard Commons policies if you like... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a "text file". We host hundreds of government forms from various governments, enormous amounts of manuscript correspondence, and, as I've said, the entire runs of many publications, a large number of which are almost entirely text. I can't point you to chapter and verse on this being OK, but I can confidently say it has been the prevailing practice for at least 15 years. See, for example, the majority of documents directly or indirectly under Category:Government documents. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me, Commons should edit or delete policies the site (in other words, admins) is (are) not observing, because people make the mistake of relying on Commons policies and guidelines to be binding... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- My interpetation of the "raw text out of scope" is that it refers to files such as "File:Courseenglishwiki.jpg" - generally very basic text documents that are own works, and should be, if needed at all, written using normal wikitext and not a embedded PDF/image file. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: feel more than free to propose clarifications to any policy or policies. Admins don't really have much more role in writing policy documents than any other active users. The additional roles we have vis a vis policy are (1) determining which changes have consensus and should be written into the documents and (2) interpreting ambiguous intent. But the consensus and intent are intended to be those of the community at large, not just the admins.
- Are there admins who are sometimes high-handed? Yes, and it can be a problem, but I'm quite comfortable in saying it is not what I'm doing here.
- Are there sources of effective policy other than what is written in policy documents and guidelines? Yes: repeated similar outcomes on DRs, CfDs, the Village pump, etc. It's sort of like "case law" supplementing "statute law".
- Jmabel ! talk 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. So I should just say Commons users decline to approve proposals such as I've made, including to simply correct the spelling of COM:Quality images candidates, even when I volunteered to fix all the links to it, but then again, it's not like admins fought for it, either. My experience has demotivated me from proposing changes, but I'll think about it and might make a proposal eventually (and likely see it shot down). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All the reasons given by @Jmabel. However, I would suggest that a further redaction of both the "trasaction ID" as well as the "Earmarked for" organizations of sections "B" and "C" only. These two sections donations were apparently from a person completely unrelated to the person in section "A." This would make clear, the unintentionally misleading impression, that all three organizations had received contibutions by the person in section A. An alternative clarification is to again upload the complete, unredacted, Federal Election Commission (FEC) form as a .png or .jpg, instead of a .pdf. -- Ooligan (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. So I should just say Commons users decline to approve proposals such as I've made, including to simply correct the spelling of COM:Quality images candidates, even when I volunteered to fix all the links to it, but then again, it's not like admins fought for it, either. My experience has demotivated me from proposing changes, but I'll think about it and might make a proposal eventually (and likely see it shot down). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me, Commons should edit or delete policies the site (in other words, admins) is (are) not observing, because people make the mistake of relying on Commons policies and guidelines to be binding... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a "text file". We host hundreds of government forms from various governments, enormous amounts of manuscript correspondence, and, as I've said, the entire runs of many publications, a large number of which are almost entirely text. I can't point you to chapter and verse on this being OK, but I can confidently say it has been the prevailing practice for at least 15 years. See, for example, the majority of documents directly or indirectly under Category:Government documents. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes we do. Many entire magazines or books, for example. In this case this might not be the best choice of format because it is only one page; it could easily enough be downloaded to a PC and re-uploaded as a JPG or PNG, if there is a consensus to do so, but I believe the discussion here should focus mainly on the content, not the format. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, privacy concerns have already been dealt with. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Presumed copyvio from the Trans Pennine Trail website, modified to remove the copyright notice. A Wayback Machine snapshot shows the original was online before this was uploaded to Commons. YorkshireLad (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Not "own work", from https://web.archive.org/web/20030819220645/https://www.safani.com/objects/illyrian_helmet.html Nutshinou Talk! 18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Not "own work", from sq:Skeda:Shkodramonedhë.jpg, but no license there Nutshinou Talk! 18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, we need a license for the photo of this coin. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
B&W photo is not free - Commercial use is not allowed "For permission to copy or use any part of the Photographic Archive for any commercial purposes, please contact" - the other one is unlikely to be own work. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Gbawden,
- Thank you for the note.
- I attach the instructions from the University of Chicago.
- Images in the University of Chicago Photographic Archive may be used for educational and scholarly purposes, but any such use requires that a credit line be included with any image used. Any use of images from the Chicago Maroon, the independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago, requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon (see below).
- Credit Line:
- University of Chicago Photographic Archive, [apf digital item number, e.g., apf12345], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
- Thanks and take care, Sf121wiki (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon" means that we would have to have permission from them to host here Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete second, clear copyvio. The first would require more publication information, since it's possible a 1972 photograph could be PD by formalities but without that info, should be deleted per COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: not fully free, per discussion (1972 image deleted per PCP). --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Not "own work", from https://wikitravel.org/shared/File:Puligadda-Penumudi_bridge.jpeg, no license there Nutshinou Talk! 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Seems to come from videos, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator
- File:Dana Leonardi Franklin Music Hall Philadelphia.jpg
- File:Dana Leonardi Music Hall of Williamsburg.jpg
- File:Dana Leonardi.jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ticket:2024080610010267 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: VRT agent (verify): we've received Ticket:2024080610010267 regarding File:Dana Leonardi.jpg. Impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- it's just a pic there is no reason to delete it. It's a nice pic. 2600:8802:3B0F:9600:7072:A241:578D:9AC2 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unidentified person, unknown notability, bad quality, unusable. --Krd 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- what does it matter? it's just a photo. why do u make such a big deal over it? my vote is to not delete it. 2600:8802:3B0F:9600:C028:B393:E8C4:6E9C 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Is this trailer in the public domain or no? If so, we can keep it and upload the video of the original trailer on Wikimedia Commons. PlahWestGuy2024 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- the trailer is in the public domain cause there any trailer between 1929 and 1977 without a registered copyright or if it wasn't renewed in 28 years make it in the category of the public domain and for this trailer the copyright of the trailer wasn't renewed in 1988 so it makes it in the category of public domain Swedish Tomato (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no metadata seems to be available for this file. It certainly seems possible for it to be found elsewhere as well, however, since we're talking about a really old photo (almost twenty years since it was taken) it looks like it's almost impossible to find the original source. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete Wish I could view the file history on trwiki but I have major doubts this image was a legitimate license release and the lack of metadata doesn't help the case. It has a white border on top, besides, making it suspiciously seem like a screen shot. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if it is a copyright violation or not, they provided a source. I'm not sure if the file is just placed under the wrong licensing or not allowed on Commons. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep I suspect this would fall below TOO. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png for previous decision about logo in Vietnam. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: per Bastique. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Weak delete see en:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_October_3#Image:Jeff_crank_family.jpg for image this was cropped from. Image was "uploaded [to Wikpedia] with permission" and nothing else. No license. Uploader may be related to Crank or Crank himself, but edited a different politician's article in 2007. We have no legitimate verification of permission in any case. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2007 upload. Permission for Wikipedia is insufficient. Could have been taken by the candidate's office. Link is 404 and IA appears to be not working at the moment. Weak delete Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete see en:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_October_3#Image:Jeff_crank_family.jpg. Image was "uploaded [to Wikpedia] with permission" and nothing else. No license. Uploader may be related to Crank or Crank himself, but edited a different politician's article in 2007. We have no legitimate verification of permission in any case. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
