Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2017-37

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Daily Newspaper, Industrial Museum Ermoupolis, Syros, Greece.jpg

If the newspaper dates from 2017 as stated, this is a clear copyright violation. If the paper is older, please provide date and proper license as it is not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The newspaper has a date of 1994 at the top. --bjh21 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Syros Almond Greek Delights Designs, Ermoupolis Industrial Museum, Syros, Greece.jpg

Objects depicted are not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The burning of the Island of Psara in June 1824.jpg

artwork depicted is not own work of uploader, needs date and author of actual creation as well as proper license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, changed licenseVera ^(talk) 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:السلطانة كوسم- 2014-06-18 23-50.jpg

Picture of unspecified origin, obviously not a personal work. One of many false pictures of Ottoman women with pseudo titles. Phso2 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad version of the portrait of Guiseppina Grassini by Vigée Le Brun (1805). --Удивленный1 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - quick image search confirms Udivlenniy1's ID. It's from 1803 and public domain. I've already renamed it. [1] Wikimandia (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remark : now that the file has a real title and description thanks to Удивленный1, this request is pointless.--Phso2 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:السلطانة خديجة 2014-06-18 23-55.jpg

wtermarked redondant picture with a wrong license and a false title. One of many false pictures of Ottoman women with invented pseudo titles. Phso2 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ba 2.jpg

no education value Vividangel (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rachiel.jpg

Description: Puxuxu 141.196.209.98 21:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope, probably requested deletion by uploader. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Miles to go - For a happy beginning by Anushka Agrawal .jpg

Copyright violations Vladimirrizov20 (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Miles to go - For a happy beginning by Anushka Agrawal .jpg

selfie not used on user page Syced (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dom 2.gif

selfie not used on user page Syced (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ratnasafa.jpg

selfie not used on user page Syced (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KRISHNA.jpg

selfie with watermarks, not used on talk page Syced (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KRISHNA.jpg

Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Way to Happiness India - 11.jpeg

off topic I believe Syced (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Non-trivial logo

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

Bad quality - out of scope. Good images (and File:Lal kot delhi.jpeg - bad quality but no alternatives) kept.

/St1995 12:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

Small filesizes, no metadata, likely disparate authors. Original photographers must confirm the free licenses by following the instructions at OTRS.

Storkk (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Anushka Agrawal .jpg

this seems to be a picture of a picture. Vera ^(talk) 15:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ওবায়েদ আকাশ.jpeg

Copied from Facebook, Metadata has "FBMD" mark. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 12:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67^T★C 14:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Unused personal files

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

Extended content

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

keep File:Africa Melane Cape Talk 702 presenter.jpg - I have no opinion about the other images for deletion, but have included this image in the relevant article (Wikipedia:Cape Talk) about the radio station at which he is both a presenter and manager. 15:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a copyvio per Tineye results /St1995 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any images listed here uploaded by me. This bot mass deletion based on a category makes proper review unnecessarily complex, and is a way of bypassing the normal DR process. --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Betty Ages photo. It's worrying that crosswiki photos like this are being unthinkingly deleted out of process. Please stop creating these crazy large automatic DRs for potentially controversial in scope images. --Fæ (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Files which are in use on other projects must not be deleted, please remove from this DR before considering any action. An example is the photograph of Arnab Roy Chowdhury. This DR is obviously hastily prepared using automation rather than actually looking at the images nominated. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a mass deletion is not helpful. Please nominate individual images. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: You really want to create dozens of thousands single DRs for all personal files, hosted on Commons? /St1995 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before talking about the number of DRs, you should check if there is really a need for a deletion. Then, some of these may not be in scope, but that has to be decided on individual basis. A mass DR of hundreds of images is not the right way to do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Answer With Metal, March 2013.jpg is a band with over 47,000 Google hits. They may or may not reach notability level for a Wikipedia article, but they certainly merit us keeping a photo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The files, as this automatic and massive DR of files of different authors, provinances, scopes (or lack of) and sources is itself out of scope. So Delete this category as out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private playground of someone, wasting other peoples time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm (talk • contribs)
The problem is not in this category. @Apocheir: Please do not add files in this category which may be notable for Commons. This cat is only for personal files! /St1995 21:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone enlighten me what is a Unused personal file, as i tought it was about out pf scope images of people, but it seems that it includes images of cars, logos (and several others logos by the way). Tm (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking as someone who's been adding a lot of files to this category lately... My conception of "personal file" includes not just pictures of the users, but pictures of the user's friends and family, promotional material for the user's musical projects, logos of the user's personal business, or anything else that is really only of interest to the uploader. Basically anything where someone's trying to use Commons as their own personal photo hosting site. There was no definition of "personal file" on the category, so it's up to individual interpretation. That said, as I stated on the Talk page, I was under the impression that there would be some sort of automated review before those files were nominated for deletion. At the very least, someone needs to clean out the files that are in use! -Apocheir (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, for now, and created separate DRs for individual files or groups thereof, based on some actual work. And, per Tm, delete this useless and nonsensical category. It may be necessary to discuss long to reach an understanding of what a “personal image” is: One’s gut feeling is not enough. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is nothing wrong with the category in and of itself, but I would ask that someone please delete two files that I uploaded with regards to Alessandro Safina and Laura Maria Calefeteanu. I am very new here and did not read the policy on public domain photos closely enough. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. GrammerCracker96 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this discussion is continuing (?) here, the DR template has been removed from the relevant page. If a majority is against these mass deletions, simply close this discussion so we can DR the files (those which are here I mean) individually or for uploader. In this situation the process is stalled and that is not correct. --E4024 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - note that there are a significant number of copyvios (more than 1/3)- a few are kept (from user who made a few useful contributions, or image in scope). --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Unused personal files

Out of scope. Personal images that are of no educational use.

Keep I think this fits fine under Category:Holi in the United States and other categories. It doesn't need to be a personal file. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been cropped so that it's just an image of the sign, not a personal image. In scope. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 03:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal jit singh Moga - panoramio.jpg Speedy keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamal jit singh Moga - panoramio.jpg, also in use. --Insider (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Zone protégée Wadi El-Gemal - panoramio - youssef alam (2).jpg - cropped Keep. --Insider (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted most per nomination, kept a few which are in use/could be potentially used. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lavinia Fisher, a very beautiful woman-But a cold killer- Both her and her husband- They both were sentanced to be hung on 1820- They're request- "Let me be hung in a white gown-" Now she roams the old abandon 2014-04-27 00-04.png

Please more experienced people investigate if this is an own work as stated or not. If not deleted, please rename the file. E4024 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this is not an own work, also because it doesn't depict Lavinia Fisher, but Kitty Fisher, who was a British courtesan with a short yet interesting story :-)
The file in itself is ok, the portrait was painted by Joshua Reynolds, who allegedly died in 1792, when Lavinia Fisher was yet to be born (1793); but we already have in use a better copy correctly attributed. It's a common mistake, though, this picture is actually used also for the American Fisher, so we can certainly forgive the uploader for the mistake and for claiming it to be an own work; we just can't forgive her for the title :-) --g (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Redundant/bad quality. --Y.haruo (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Testing upload from android app.jpg

Test upload Talk to Kong of Lasers 18:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Per COM:NOTHOST: Wikimedia Commons is not meant to host personal images (selfies etc.)

Takeaway (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Out of scope - unused personal image.

Mitte27 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Per COM:NOTHOST: Wikimedia Commons is not meant to host personal images (selfies etc.)

— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 16:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: User warned previously about COM:SCOPE. Nuked. --Ankry (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zahid.png

Out of COM:SCOPE, unused. Hystrix (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

Temporary installation, so not covered by Freedom of panorama in the UK.

Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add detail: Key elements are now on display elsewhere, and the relevant information states "any photos and video taken ... may not be recreated or used for commercial purposes". Unfortunately, that will affect ALL photos of the artwork while it was on display at the Tower of London. One file which is definitely OK is File:Bloodswept Lands and Seas of Red poppies in St John the Baptist's Church, Hillingdon 01.jpg, which shows some of the poppies on permanent display. Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Majority of files. However Keep any which do not actually show the poppies (such as the one of the Shard in the subcat), or of poppies on permanent display after the main exhibit was finished (like the ones in the church at Hillingdon).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. How absurd, but rules and rules. I'm confused, though, because some of these images (such as File:Tower of London poppies 01.JPG) don't even show the temporary art installation. -Another Believer (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to have had to have done this, but seeing as copyright is being asserted over the smaller components now on display elsewhere it seems wrong to allow this to stay up. I have nominated every file in the category, as that was simply easier. Certain files like that one are fine.-Nilfanion (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they are poppies in a field, were this grass in a field (maybe looked after by a gardener), we would not be counting that as a copyright infringement. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Peel: No, Mike, these are ceramic poppies created and placed as part of an art installation. You can learn more here: en: Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red. -Another Believer (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to note that I understood that they were ceramic poppies, apologies for taking poetic license here. Others have have commented on this more eloquently below, though, so I won't add more here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems it was permanently installed for the whole life of the work, given that it was dismantled and that was the concept from the start. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The installation of the work is the very definition of temporary. It was installed for a fixed period, with the intention of removing parts of the work for sale and future display at other sites. Unlike a display of actual flowers, the "natural" life of the work is much longer than the brief period it surrounded the tower.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording of the deletion nomination may be confusing. The Copyright, D&P Act uses the expression "[works...] permanently situated" [in a public place, etc.]. The deletion nomination is using the word "temporary" [installation] and referring to a common definition of that adjective, which is not used in the relevant section of the Act. The question is not if a work (or installation) is "temporary" in a common or dictionary sense. The question is if a work (or installation) is "permanently situated", in a legal sense and in the context of the Act. As far as we are speaking of the installation by Cummins and Piper as the whole work, viewed as gestalt, it was destroyed, as planned, after having been situated in the same public place for its entire time, from its instalment until its destruction. That work was not moved from another previous location and it was not moved to another location afterwards. One might well say that it was temporary in a general sense that it existed for a shorter time than other works that exist for a longer time, yet it was installed with the intention to be, and it was, permanently situated in the same place for its entire existence. It would be somewhat like some of Christo's works, for example. However, the two small sections that were detached and preserved may indeed be considered differently. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the distinction between permanent and temporary is one of intent, and that mirrors the information at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary

In general, the "natural" lifetime of an artistic work is based on the physical properties of the medium, not an arbitrary date. If an ice sculpture is displayed for a couple weeks and it was removed when it started to decay, that's permanent. If a sculpture is displayed from 6 months, with the intention of destroying it on a pre-set date - even though it is design life is measured in a much longer period, with the intention of displaying key elements of the work at other locations, and raising funds with the components no longer required, that is clearly intent to treat the work as a temporary exhibit.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christo might be a bad example - his Reichstag wrapping was ruled by a German court as temporary.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not actually ask the artist? As a former member of staff at one of the museums that Paul's poppies have been displayed at, I've just dropped him an email to explain the proposed deletion of every image of his work from Wikimedia, including on his own Wikipedia page. You can read my email here. I will post a summary of any reply that I might receive, though it would be quite ridiculous to expect ordinary human beings to work to the 7-day turnaround that Wikimedians seem to assume is reasonable. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Images like File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (3).jpg do not show individual poppies in sufficient detail as to breach copyright (if that really is an issue), and the overall mass of them is not copyrightable. The terms quoted from the CWGC website are not binding on us. Also per Asclepias. Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bad example of one to keep, as its of one of the two elements ("Wave") that are explicitly called sculptures in their own right; its not just a bunch of poppies. I agree that the CWGC restriction s little different from dozens of others non-copyright restrictions, however there is indeed a copyright concern underlying (which we do have to look at).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have not examined the bulk of images on this deletion list but feel able to comment on my own. I am very appreciative of the artwork as a whole and of the people manufacturing the poppies and those arranging them on the ground. The work was a startling tribute and manifestation of woe. I would, though, like to assert that the individual poppies were stamped by machinery from sheet clay and assembled skilfully and rapidly by factory workers using a basic, but non-creative, skill. Dipped in red slip, and fired in bulk each poppy is not an artwork but a manufactured object. The specific placement of each poppy in the ground was done by ordinary groups of people such that any small photographable area was not under the influence of the artist's mind. I would suggest that File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - wet poppies at night.jpg File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 146.jpg File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 147.jpg File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red 158.jpg File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - wet poppies at night.jpg do not meet the threshold of being a work of art, being manufactured objects, much as the British Legion paper poppies of the November season in the UK. Also by being planted randomly. The image File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - Roll of Honour at sunset.jpg is principally of two people standing in poppies in which the artwork is very de minimis. The image File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - volunteers.jpg is also de minimis and of a very much unfinished work. It does not show any of the artist's own structures. I imagine that many of the candidate images could have similar justification for their retention. Oosoom ^Talk 09:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FoP does apply for all images where individual detail cannot be seen, and where the arrangement has no special detail, such as File:Тауэр, Лондон. Великобритания.jpg where the poppies are just a layer on the ground, rather than showing any draping or arrangement. We need to be cautious as general flower arrangements, such as can be publicly seen at funerals, or for that matter flower displays in gardens which by their nature are always temporary, should not be treated as original artworks when they are intentionally part of the scene/landscape. With regard to the limits of finding intellectual property in modern "installations", see past DRs at User:Fæ/Installations. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep low risk landscape with installation art in it. no discussion of de minimus.

note to closing admin delete these files, and i will nominate File:Wreaths at the Cenotaph 2016.jpg; File:Flowers_for_Princess_Diana's_Funeral.jpg;File:Flowers_sit_at_the_Pentagon_Memorial_in_Arlington,_Va.,_Sept_140911-D-DT527-015.jpg etc etc, by the same rubric: cut flowers are inherently temporary, and their arrangement is copyrightable, therefore need CC license by installation artist.

the question we should ask the nominator: are you here to delete things, or curate an image repository? are you attempting to destroy what you cannot create? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume bad faith. I made this nomination reluctantly, as I think this is an iconic artwork, but examination of the merits of the case is important and we need to be confident that our policies cover this. Within the fields of poppies there are multiple signature sculptures (ie the Weeping Window). Even if we consider the individual poppies to not be copyrighted works of artistic craftsmanship (no one can claim copyright over a natural flower, but that doesn't mean an artificial flower is NOT protected), and we also consider the overall field of red to be free of artistic creativity, then those specific sculpture elements are certainly copyrighted and I cannot see how we can justify keeping those in without explicit say so from the artist. Working out what needs to be deleted, and what is OK to keep is entirely proper for a DR discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i made no assumptions, rather i asked questions. i note you have uploaded 7000 maps. have you ever uploaded a monument, or photo of a person, or work of art? how many nominations for deletion? 50000? wouldn't you agree that your time would be better spent deleting items with a clear legal precedent, rather than speculating on those without one? as you know deletion is not a quality improvement process. wouldn't you agree it would be better to go to VP to reach a broad consensus about speculative copyright rather than DR? this is the community that told the national portrait gallery london to get stuffed about "sweat of the brow". why the sudden doubt about NC? you realize that NC is allowed on this site (as a hybrid)? wouldn't it be better to develop a standard of practice, rather than randomly mass deleting items? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not ever examine more fringe cases how do we ever know if we are right - can you point me to any precedent where type of thing (ie photos of a non-permanently place sculpture) have been kept? I do have a degree of experience of that class of DR, and they do end as deletes, so I raised this a single deletion request as it is a single artwork. Maybe that was in error due to the nuances in this particular work, but I sense your hostility is simply because of the approach I took and nothing to do with the merits of the case. Please comment on the case itself and not me.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we look at the law from a strict mathematical perspective, nothing is permanet - everything will disappear one day, so we need to find another definition of the word "permanent" which is applicable to this context. This academic paper criticises the UK government for lack of clarity as to what is meant by "permanent", so we need to find a suitable definition. In my view, a sculpture is on permanent display if it will remain in situ for the rest of its life. In this case, the sculpture is the collection of poppies (not the individual poppies) and the sculpture did remain in place for its entire life. It has now been dismantled and its components disposed of. (My wife and I own two of the poppies). I contend therefore that in respect of the copyright law, this sculpture was permanent.

Declaration of interest - I am the contributor of this image. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above to Asclepias. It was destroyed by deliberate human intervention by the creator, not the elements, at a pre-determined date, which is the essence of a temporary exhibit.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as far as images of "fields of poppies" go. My thinking is broadly per Andy Mabbett above. Yes an individual sculpted poppy displayed as an artwork would be an artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. An image of a thousand such poppies showing no detail of each of one however might not infringe the rights of the copyright holder. Also, asking the copyright holder nicely is a good idea, thank you Nick Moyes. Regards, The Land (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've analysed all the images now fully and have broken them down into the following groups (I expect different people would do it slightly differently, but the principle should be same):

1: Shows an interpretation board or booklet

~~File:Certificate (16007640970).jpg~~, File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16907557751).jpg, ~~File:Poppy sign 8114161.JPG~~, ~~File:Poppy Volunteers Entrance (14845373630).jpg~~, File:Tower of London Remembers (14846607419).jpg, File:Tower of London Remembers (14846803717).jpg, ~~[:File:Tower of London Remembers (15032996112).jpg]]~~, File:Your Piece of History (15575156693).jpg

2: One of the significant sculptures is key element of the photo, not just poppies on the ground

3: View of large portion of the work, including one of the key sculptures

4: View of large portion of the work, only with poppies on the ground

5: View of small section of the work, showing reasonable detail of poppies

6: View of limited number of poppies at the Tower, clearly showing structure

7: Likely de minimis, as the primary subject is not the poppies

File:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red - Roll of Honour at sunset.jpg, File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red IMG 1762.JPG, File:James Shows Us How (14845446447).jpg, File:James Shows Us How (15028938991).jpg, File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16738931910).jpg, File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16925023282).jpg, File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16925259141).jpg, File:London Poppies At The Tower Of London 20-9-2014 (16926237525).jpg, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 01.JPG, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 03.JPG, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 06.JPG, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 09.JPG, File:Poppy Planting (14845374937).jpg, File:Tower of London (2014) - 17.JPG, File:Tower of London Panorama.jpg, File:Tower Poppies 7 November 4.JPG, File:Tower Poppies 7 November 5.JPG, File:Tower Poppies 7 November 6.JPG, File:Tower Poppies 7 November 7.JPG, File:Tower Poppies Revisited (15327247847).jpg, File:Tower Poppies Revisited (15510689131).jpg, File:Welsh Guards Band in a sea of poppies.jpg

8: Does not depict the work at all, or shows individual poppies on true permenent display

File:A Poppy for Albert (15683650440).jpg, File:A Poppy for Albert (15684970779).jpg, File:A Poppy for Albert (15845172356).jpg, File:Archer (15010370456).jpg, File:Bloodswept Lands and Seas of Red poppies in St John the Baptist's Church, Hillingdon 01.jpg, File:My Tower Poppy (15572581894).jpg, File:My Tower Poppy (15572585564).jpg, File:My Tower Poppy (16193090801).jpg, File:Pet's Cemetery - Simon the Pug (14845488397).jpg, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 04.JPG, File:Poppies at the Tower of London 08.JPG, File:Stalks and Centres (14845394568).jpg, File:The Shard (14846834567).jpg, File:Tower Bridge (15033354555).jpg, File:Tower Hill First World War Memorial Corridor (14845160189).jpg, File:Tower of London (14846813537).jpg, File:Tower of London poppies 01.JPG, File:Tower of London poppies 05.JPG, File:Tower Poppies Revisited (15136448583).jpg, File:Tower Poppies Revisited (15513852415).jpg, File:Tower Poppies Revisited (15757390182).jpg, File:Volunteer (14845363440).jpg, File:Volunteers (14845265269).jpg, File:Volunteers (14845416078).jpg, File:Volunteers (15030395461).jpg, File:Volunteers (15031652272).jpg, File:Volunteers at Work (14845327418).jpg

I apologise if this takes up too much room but there are ~400 files... Group 1 and 2 should be definite Delete images only, while group 8 is definite Keep, and I have been cautious on including images in the group. The other groups are more variable, and depend on the fine details of copyright here. IMO 1-6 are all deletes (based on logic of original nomination), while 7 and 8 are keeps.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are expecting participants to spend too much time on this. Please consider withdrawing this mass DR and re-pitch it focused on clearer cases and a much smaller set. In general, if more than 100 files need to be batch deleted, then a DR only works if they are extremely obvious. Expecting volunteers to sift through 100 or more where there are copyright issues and key differences to discuss is never going to work well. --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its open now so damage is done in that sense, and in any case, the artist's response will be helpful to all cases. I see three distinct issues (the more developed sculptures, the generic fields and close-ups). With only 3 real groupings, there's still going to be a lot of files to review in the sub-sets. I think this bulk DR is likely to resolve the generic "fields" case, without prejudice on the other two situations. Given that and to respect the views of those who have already contributed, it will best to simply to let it run, and (if appropriate) create new ones for sub-sets after.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the damage it done by this tendentious nomination. why don't you put on a maintenance category for license review, and go to VP and get some reviewers? why are you now changing the nomination, with sub-groups? do you have any legal precedent for your groupings, or are you speculating? and by all means "let it run" since you seem to have out of consensus views. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above info isn't a change to the nomination, but additional info. The groupings are a response to those constructive comments which try to say "keep this things as they are fine" (ie "keep those which are XXX").--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think group 1 is obvious at all. Some of them are clear copyvios due to no FoP for 2D graphic works, but the ones which are photos of a sign that is nothing more than text would likely be fine, though possibly out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck: Yep you are right there (I know this is messy enough as it is and didn't want to make even worse). I've stricken out those that are of minimal text only.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those three at least I agree should be deleted, regardless of the outcome of the rest of this, on the grounds of 2D FoP. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a bit more background information... This work was designed as and scheduled as a temporary installation (i.e. not permanent). There are at least two artists involved: the ceramic artist en:Paul Cummins who designed and produced the poppy sculptures - 888,246 of them - one for each British Commonwealth soldier killed in the First World War, and the theatre and stage designer en:Tom Piper who designed at least two fixed arrangements (the Wave and the Weeping Window) of the ceramic poppies (which are now touring and due to go on permanent display next year) and who designed the setting and arrangements used in the subject of this deletion request, the en:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red installation at the Tower of London which incorporated the Wave and the Weeping Window. So this installation was the work of at least two artists and combined not only 888,246 ceramic poppies, but two fixed pieces using them. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not know for sure whether or not the artists concerned actually hold any copyrights. While it is true that copyrights (where they exist) might initially have devolved to the artists concerned, it is quite possible that their contracts with third parties required them to surrender their copyrights to those third parties. For example, during my career as a contract software engineer, I often had to surrender my claim to copyright for any software that I wrote to the client concerned. Before rushing into deleting any of these images, we must ascertain what copyrights are held and who holds them. If the owner of the copyright is the Crown, then we are free to publish these images under the OGL licence scheme. Martinvl (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable question, but it doesn't really change matters. As a default position, it is sensible to assume that copyright is held by the artist unless shown otherwise. The most likely organisation to have acquired copyright is 14-18 NOW, which is an independent organisation chiefly led by the Imperial War Museum. Neither 14-18 NOW, nor the IWM, is a government agency so the OGL is irrelevant. 14-18 NOW claims full copyright over images on its Flickr stream. So, I'd conclude that IF the copyright was transferred to a 3rd party, the transfer wouldn't have made it "free".--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nilfanion: I have done a quick search of 14-18 NOW and cannot find anything about its legal status. Does it have its own legal personna (eg is it a company) or is it a joint venture between the various sponsoring organisations? If the former, I could not find a reference to it on the Companies House website, if the latter, then it cannot own anything in its own right. Also, the FLICKR link that you gave did not show any images of the poppies at the Tower nor did it indicate who owned the copyright of the images that were displayed. Finally, since copyright persists for 70 years after the death of the artists concerned and NOW appears destined to be wound up next year, what will happen to the copyright after 1418NOW is wound up? Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The registration number quoted on 14-18 NOW's website is that of the IWM, which is the lead organisation. That suggests legally its part of the IWM and not a separate entity, and when it closes down all of its property (including its intellectual property) will simply continue to be the IWM's. Even if its Flickr stream did include photos of the poppies, it wouldn't be any use to this DR, as all that would show is copyright on the photo not the sculpture itself. What the stream does demonstrate is that it asserts copyright over works it does control, as opposed to using a free license. The copyright of the sculptures will expire 70 years after the death of the artist(s), regardless of who actually has the right to exploit it (there is no distinct concept of corporate copyright in the UK). The bottom line: If there is copyright over the work, it has not been released under a free license and it is not going to enter the public domain any time soon.
      As a result, I'd say this line of questioning isn't helpful to resolving the matter. It would be better to focus on the fundamental question: Is there any copyright in the first place? For the work as a whole, for component elements (either a random part of the field or a complex component like the Weeping Window), and/or for individual poppies? The majority of comments deal with that aspects of that question, and I'm confident the closing admin will interpret those appropriately to make their decision.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The IWM is also well known for asserting copyright ownership of PD works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's true, but I don't see how its relevant. Either the work is eligible for copyright or it isn't. If it isn't eligible for copyright, then we can safely ignore any claims. If it is eligible for copyright, then its clearly not in the Public Domain due to age. The IWM's track record has no bearing on this situation.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It is relevant because it means that we cant take them at their word, when they claim copyright over a work which may not be copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No - its really is irrelevant to this case, as nothing actually reference the IWM at all, and furthermore the IWM has made no claims. The most likely copyright holder is the artist, and even if real evidence is presented of a transfer of copyright its not pertinent (as a transfer of copyright makes ZERO difference to whether the work is protected by copyright or not). The question here is whether the work is copyrightable (and as a secondary fact if specific photos violate that copyright), not if an organisation with no concrete link to the work, is lying in a claim they haven't actually made!--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion: We need to stand back and look at why copyright exists. The law on copyright (which varies from country to country) exists to pay the artist (or their heirs) a just reward for their efforts. That right can of course be sold on to a third party. Commons on the other hand only publishes images that others can use where no reward is payable in respect of the artist's efforts. There are at least three ways in which such reward is not payable:

The right to receive the reward has time-expired.
The owner(s) of the right have waived their rights.
The owner(s) of the right have extinguished their rights.

Commons rules (including OTRS) seek to ensure that one of these criteria are met. As such I find Nilfanion's statement unhelpful. Martinvl (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fourth major situation when copyright is non-issue is "The creator has no rights under copyright law, as their work is not artistic", which is the point Mike Peel and Oosoom made above. While I might disagree with their take on the situation, I agree that aspect is worthy of discussion. Another is "derivative works may be created with no compensation to the copyright holder" (the essence of FOP - which only applies to artworks on permanent display).

As for your 3 classes of exemptions, clearly the first isn't appropriate here and won't be for decades. With regards to the other point, do you have any evidence that the copyright holder (the artist or anyone else) has given up their rights? If you do, please present it. If you do not, we need to follow the precautionary principle and assume that they have not given those rights up.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion: During this discussion, there has been considerable debate, often by people with little or no legal background as to what constitutes a "permanent display". (Since I have completed a single university level course on South African Commercial Law, I class myself as having a little legal background). It appears that this term has not been defined by the English courts, but the following come from a German legal journalist

"Under § 59 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, the freedom of panorama applies only to works located permanently at public places. “Permanently” means they remain at a place for the duration of their existence [2].

Following this definition (which is likely to be used as persuasive evidence should the matter ever be referred to an English court, especially as it defines Article 5.3(h) of EU directive 2001/29/EC [3] in the German context), it follows that the exhibition was a permanent exhibition.Martinvl (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case you quote is about a quite different situation (does a display on a ship count as permanent, even though the ship moves?). While such a case could define "permanent", you are just moving the goal posts by giving "existence" the meaning you want it to have.

Rather more pertinent to this situation, is case law from the highest German court that explicitly ruled a specific installation artwork (the Reichstag Wrapping), was not eligible for FOP because it was not a permanent installation (BBC news story, (German) legal commentary). To quote (via machine translation) the ruling (the emphasis is mine):

"A work of the visual arts is not permanent in a public place, if the work is presented in the sense of a temporally limited exhibition. It is irrelevant whether the plant continues to exist after the degradation or whether it is destroyed by the degradation."

"But the situation is different if the entitled person limits the period of public appointment to a period which is shorter than the natural life of the work. Then the work is not permanently at the public location, but is only temporarily dedicated to the public. It is irrelevant whether the work continues after its removal or whether it is destroyed in the course of the uninstallation."

How are the poppies different to the Reichstag Wrapping? Both were time-limited and removed at the end of the exhibition.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to report back that, having not received a response to my first email, I sent a second email on 27th September to Paul Cummins (and a cc-ed it to Tom Piper's agent, as per his website), asking them both to let me know their views - one way or another - on whether they believe they own the rights in those images and if they're OK with them being used on Wikimedia. It's obviously far too soon for a reply - these are busy people - but a lack of a reply might well reflect disinterest in this matter, despite it vexing us all greatly. I will report back if I hear anything. BTW: Is there a list of only those poppy images currently being used on Wikipedia? That could be useful if I do get a response and it comes to seeking OTRS permissions for individual images to retain. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick Moyes: This image (which I uploaded) is used on the Hungarian Wikipedia. I have not checked on any other images. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to be able to report that I have just received an initial response on behalf of both artists from the Executive Director of 14-18NOW. This should allow us to take this matter forward, with clarity, and in a way that respects their wishes regarding their image rights. I don't think it would be appropriate to copy the text of that email here, so I propose to email it to @Nilfanion: so together (or with others if they wish) we can formulate the best response. This probably needs to offer clear and simple options such as a) total image retention b) total image deletion c) selected image retention d) future handling of all subsequent image uploads. I trust this will be sufficient to prevent any imminent mass deletion, at least until such time as we have clarity on the artists' views and have put any specific permissions in place. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note there are a further 118 images in this sub-category, some of which show the full artwork and which have not been flagged for deletion. Any reason for this? I also note there are some images only uploaded to en.wiki such as this one by @Andrew Davidson: . Are these also liable to be put up for deletion, or is uploading to local wikis one solution to avoiding infringing the artists' copyright? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for taking the initiative to contact the artists/their representative! I'd suggest making sure that a copy of the email is archived on OTRS regardless of its contents/the outcome of this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I forwarded Nilfanion a copy of the email today, plus a suggested draft reply for us to work on. Their userpage suggests he/she is part of the OTRS Team - not sure if that's sufficient. Am awaiting a reply, but I will send 14-18 NOW a holding acknowledgement in the next 24hrs if I don't get an immediate reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: the first six groups, kept the last two. The argument that this is a permanent exhibit might be valid if the poppies had been destroyed following their time at the Tower, but that was neither the intent not the case -- they were sold, or moved for permanent display elsewhere. The (deleted) certificate made that clear and also the fact that each one was individually created and therefore each had an individual copyright. I am not sure I agree with all of those that are said to be de minimis, but this has been open for a month and has no action for ten days, so it is time to close it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

unlikely own work, small resolution and EXIF data indicates possible grabbed from Facebook.

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work : small / middle size without EXIFs. Comes from facebook as per "FBMD"

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work : small / middle size without EXIFs. Comes from facebook as per "FBMD"

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 05:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work : small / middle size without EXIFs. Comes from facebook as per "FBMD", 2nd time upload after deletion of previous images

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 08:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2017-37

Contents

File:Daily Newspaper, Industrial Museum Ermoupolis, Syros, Greece.jpg

File:Syros Almond Greek Delights Designs, Ermoupolis Industrial Museum, Syros, Greece.jpg

File:The burning of the Island of Psara in June 1824.jpg

File:السلطانة كوسم- 2014-06-18 23-50.jpg

File:السلطانة خديجة 2014-06-18 23-55.jpg

File:Ba 2.jpg

File:Rachiel.jpg

File:Miles to go - For a happy beginning by Anushka Agrawal .jpg

File:Miles to go - For a happy beginning by Anushka Agrawal .jpg

File:Dom 2.gif

File:Ratnasafa.jpg

File:KRISHNA.jpg

File:KRISHNA.jpg

File:The Way to Happiness India - 11.jpeg

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

File:Anushka Agrawal .jpg

File:ওবায়েদ আকাশ.jpeg

Files in Category:Unused personal files

Discussion

Files in Category:Unused personal files

File:Lavinia Fisher, a very beautiful woman-But a cold killer- Both her and her husband- They both were sentanced to be hung on 1820- They're request- "Let me be hung in a white gown-" Now she roams the old abandon 2014-04-27 00-04.png

File:Testing upload from android app.jpg

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

File:Zahid.png

Files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2017-37

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ram.1alien (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Unused personal files

Discussion

Files in Category:Unused personal files

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Vicky Dwivedi Badshah (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search