Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2017-45
.jpg){kind=link}
Watermarked photo without metadata, possible copyvio (seems like TV screenshot). -- 109.238.80.74 16:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a photo of a museum plaque. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a photo of a museum plaque. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Photo of another image, not own work, see artist sig. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Like user's other uploads, looks like a photo of another image, not own work. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Like user's other uploads, looks like a photo of soemoen else's art. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted – uploaded by a WP0 abuser. --jdx Re: 06:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE Eurodyne (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Kolforn (talk · contribs) nominated the file for speedy deletion with reason "Unused personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope". I'm not sure, we can discuss it for a week. It is in category "Woman at work in Tunisia", maybe usable as stock photo. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep part of the Wiki Loves Africa contest about Africans at work. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)- Weak Delete - Uploaded in good faith, but unclear if it's in project scope. With no description and no information about who this is, what sort of work is being done, etc. it seems unlikely it has an educational purpose (according to GTranslate, it is someone working at Etisalat, a telecom company, but since there's nothing in the image about Etisalat that doesn't seem to help much?). The users's other uploads looks to be good, though (at a glance). — Rhododendrites talk | 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: FYI Etisalat means here, literally, 'telecommunications', not referring to the company. Cordially — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing here to prove that its a "Woman at work in Tunisia". Would have helped if there was some categorization other than Woman at work in Tunisia. It is more like a personal photo of subject and has no apparent notability. Not useful for educational purposes. Demax (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: unused personal photo without metadata. -- 109.238.80.47 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
File:Machines - computers think what we let them think-----Manipulate thoughts as variables in algorithms--So to have a thought based on experience--Experience is random variable input--Random variable input is al 2014-04-26 20-08.jpeg
[edit]
Out of COM:SCOPE: unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. -- 109.238.80.47 21:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Moheen Reeyad at 09:44, 3 November 2017 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 13:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope - unused personal image Rohana Erani (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope. personal image Austriantraveler (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
oos. Austriantraveler (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lazy fat guy (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the same picture as File:Sarovaram 19.jpg Nick Moreau (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This photograph focuses solely on one creative work, not the larger span of posters, and thus likely doesn't qualify for Creative Commons. Nick Moreau (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep A similar work, File:Poster - Gone With the Wind 01.jpg, is tagged {{PD-US-no notice}}. The cited US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision appears to apply to this work as well.[1] However the PD-US-no notice tag must be added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This photograph focuses solely on one likely copyrighten work, and is catching a lot of the concession stands nearby in the glass. Nick Moreau (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
File:Sarovaram 24.jpg shows this poster and another, while this file has no larger context. Nick Moreau (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Unfocused, and no indication how anyone would use this unidentified section of wood (a door? they claim a fence post.) with a spooky face on it. Nick Moreau (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Alternative photo Moajjem 01:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted at request of uploader -- 3x file. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Kolforn (talk · contribs) nominated the file for speedy deletion with reason "Unused personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope". Taivo (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - promotional - unused text logo of non-notable company. MCMLXXXIX 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, I am the uploader of this picture. It is the former logo of a school, that is no more in use. I had completely forgotten this image and why I wanted to use it, this is why I only react now. I think it is acceptable for Commons to host the visual identity of schools (the two most recents logo are on Commons). Am I wrong ? Regards, Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to logo size, in scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As established in previous request, the logo is in scope. But unfortunately it surpasses threshold of originality and needs OTRS-permission from school representative to stay in Commons. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- I like to think it would just slip below TOO. Difficult tho, I remember thinking about this logo and TOO, not 100% sure either way. If deleted, probably eligible for FRwiki per their logo policy. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so you recommend me to upload it on fr-wiki, instead ? To be fair, the school does not exist anymore, so I am assuming it will be difficult to get a permission... Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, uploading it as fair use locally into fr.wiki would be a good solution. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no fair use in fr.wiki, as far as I remember. I will try to follow that. Thanks for the advice. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Done ! See here. I hope I did not make a mistake... Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, uploading it as fair use locally into fr.wiki would be a good solution. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so you recommend me to upload it on fr-wiki, instead ? To be fair, the school does not exist anymore, so I am assuming it will be difficult to get a permission... Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Transferred to FRWP. Green Giant (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
out of scope Atamari (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cuteness
[edit]The photographs fail to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
There has been no evidence presented that the toy(s) at the focus of this photograph, and named in the category or title, are public domain. Photographs where there is a potential de minimis rationale, and other items or people may be the main focus, have not been selected in this request.
For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests:
- Petit tigre
- Erminig
- Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush
- Wikimania 2014 Day 1
- Jimmy Wales meeting Mr Penguin
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Cancunchyk.jpg
- File:Cuteness can diego 1320.jpg
- File:Turtle plushie.jpg
- File:Wikisource user group photo 201284.jpg
- File:Wmcon 2017 mascots .jpg
--Fæ (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note. This deletion request is misleadingly titled and only those files explicitly listed above have been nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: File:Turtle plushie.jpg - this is in use on several wikis and I can find no attempt by the nominator to inform those projects that deletion is even being considered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Info a request for an OTRS ticket review has been raised on COM:OTRS/N. However ticket:2014010410007074 appears to be transcluded in just one photograph. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The photograph user:Fæ refers to above is File:Turtle plushie.jpg. I recommend that this be removed from this nomination unless and until it is confirmed that the OTRS agent was in error when they confirmed this file was free. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- According to the list on meta, you are an OTRS volunteer. If you do not have access to the Commons queue, perhaps you should request it. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- The photograph user:Fæ refers to above is File:Turtle plushie.jpg. I recommend that this be removed from this nomination unless and until it is confirmed that the OTRS agent was in error when they confirmed this file was free. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I now have confirmation by IRC that the ticket is about the photograph, and gave no confirmation about the copyright of the toy. @Wdwd: for information as the apparent OTRS volunteer who added the OTRS template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Big Bad Wolfowitz as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Obvious copyvio. Recording a speech by another person does not give the person recording it any copyright or other authority to license it.
- very inappropriate for speedy deletion. The "speech" isn't actually complicated enough to get copyright protection. The audio technician does get copyright Vera (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you're absolutely, dead wrong here. (And I don't think you should have removed a speedy from a file you uploaded ypurself, but that's a different issue.) The file is audio of the article subject reading or reciting a paragraph of text he had composed. It it were text taken from his website, there'd be no question that it couldn't be incorporated verbatim into the article. "Complicated" is not really a copyright criterion in this context' the banality or generality of text does not render it public domain. If the subject were reciting the alphabet, or counting to 30, it wouldn't be copyrightable -- but that's due to lack of originality, not for simplicity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- The one being dead wrong is you. Quotes of this length are regularly included in Wikipedia articles. Works have to meet a level of complexity to get copyright protection, see Commons:Threshold of originality. "my name is [name], I'm a [profession] at [employer] and [other job]. I've written books [list a couple of book]" is a format of introducing oneself you will find all throughout history. --Vera (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- The page you refer to deals predominantly with images, not to prose. There's no doubt that the speech as a whole is subject to copyright; slicing out a piece of it and saying "I don't think this paragraph is particularly original" doesn't make the text public domain. The "threshold of originality" page is based on many court decisions, and not even one of those deals with text. Quotes of this length are regularly included in many wikipedia articles -- but as "fair use" materials, not as free/PD text. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- The one being dead wrong is you. Quotes of this length are regularly included in Wikipedia articles. Works have to meet a level of complexity to get copyright protection, see Commons:Threshold of originality. "my name is [name], I'm a [profession] at [employer] and [other job]. I've written books [list a couple of book]" is a format of introducing oneself you will find all throughout history. --Vera (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you're absolutely, dead wrong here. (And I don't think you should have removed a speedy from a file you uploaded ypurself, but that's a different issue.) The file is audio of the article subject reading or reciting a paragraph of text he had composed. It it were text taken from his website, there'd be no question that it couldn't be incorporated verbatim into the article. "Complicated" is not really a copyright criterion in this context' the banality or generality of text does not render it public domain. If the subject were reciting the alphabet, or counting to 30, it wouldn't be copyrightable -- but that's due to lack of originality, not for simplicity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- yeah, it's a mystery why a guidance on policy page in a media database that's 95% consisting of pictures mostly deals with pictures. Read the actual text for the #Netherlands. Threshold of originality is fairly high here. Vera (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted words. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image CypherPunk777 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? 
Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep That doesn't sound like enough reason to delete. I often downsize my photos before publication if they don't have enough image quality to worth keeping the full resolution, and it's easy to lose the EXIF data when doing that. I don't much care about the EXIF data, especially for mobile phone photos. This happens more often for vacation pictures that I share with family than with educational pictures on Commons, because I typically just don't upload the bad quality photos to Commons, but when the photo is hard to replace, I still do this on Commons too, eg. File:Vác emléktabla Lipovniczky László.jpg and File:Wikimeetup 2013-07-13 Budapest cake F 0.png. I believe this is original photo by uploader. – b_jonas 11:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: We virtually always assume theat small images lacking EXIF are not "own work" unless the uploader can convince us otherwise. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nonfree source: Wikimapia ~★ nmaia d 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep because wikimapia distribute the content in cc-by-sa and by being in that license can be redistributed since it notifies them that it is theirs. And, by chance, it's the same license we use here --Agronopolos discussão 22:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Olga Seromyatnikova (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Olga Seromyatnikova (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
copyright violation: photo of web browser Takeaway (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Used in Wikiversity Learning Resource https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/3D_Modelling/Examples to show the browser based embedding of AFrame in a window. Available Browsersbuttons and a bit of Desktop part of the Operating System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Niehaus (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Browser is Firefox OpenSource, the used Framework is AFrame. The Image in AFrame is a Wikimedia Commons Image allows REMIX - a minor section of the whole panorama image is displayed in the browser. Text was added in the AFrame by Bert Niehaus. Origin of Image was added in the Media Information. What else is necessary not to violate copyright? Is a screenshot a better solution?
--Bert Niehaus (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion per explanation above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope; uploader says it was just a test of their skills. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
UPF and OoS. E4024 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- also file:Salam Revolusi.jpeg
Unused personal logos, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader is the photographer. No EXIF data and this image was used in publicity material for :Chamber Choir Ireland in the same year as the upload [2]. Note that a similar image, obviously from the same photo shoot appears on their official website [3]. The website credits its photographs to " Frances Marshall Photography" [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyvio. --Y.haruo (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
File:Rashmi ranjan Seth-Ravenshaw university-Cuttack - Tangi - Pg English--Nic-Chhatia college 2014-04-26 00-34.jpg
[edit]
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)