Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/04/04

Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive April 4th, 2021
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.

Licensed under non-free non-commercial, no derivatives license. Dylsss (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I tagged it as such. Totally screwed up. I've done this a couple of times lately with PDFs: I'll need to go back and look at some of my uploads. Thanks/sorry @Dylsss: . —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (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.

Because it is A selfie, Blurry, Nonsense Arunkumarngh (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: 17thc painting. Nonsense request by another Android app user. --Achim (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2021 (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.

This counts as a derivative work of Top Cat. Any lawyer could argue that. So despite this commercial not having followed the formalities required at the time, since it is a derivative work (using the Top Cat characters and voices) it is arguably still under protection. Put File:Top Cat Kellogg's commercial 2 (c. 1961).webm in this as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Top Cat character.png and File:Top Cat main characters.png as they are direct derivatives of these video files. They should all be deleted for the same reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Racconish: PseudoSkull (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 11:58, 4 April 2021 (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.

See my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Top Cat Kellogg's commercial 1 (c. 1961).webm. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: PseudoSkull (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 12:01, 4 April 2021 (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.

Copyright to Tourism and Events Queensland Paulanthonysummers (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (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.

Belong to me and an old photo and want to change with new now soon HkmTUnsL (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2021 (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.

Duplicates: File:2021 Hualien train derailment simple graph-EN.svg. Unused and redundant JPG file. SCP-2000 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (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.

Duplicates: File:2021 Hualien train derailment simple graph-ZH.svg. Unused and redundant JPG file. SCP-2000 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (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.

The page states a CC0 1.0 license but I doubt that that is valid. This image is from a news outlet website, I doubt that hey would give this image that license, on top of that I can't find the license on their website anywhere. - NeoMeesje (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Файли і медіа Суспільного мовника використовуються у вільному доступі з вказанням авторства — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-17 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file was recently deleted from File:Рангов мыжрегіональне шоу "Ранок на Суспільному".png. I have tagged it for speedy deletion, see COM:GCSD#G4. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 5 April 2021 (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.

Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation Timtrent (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please take a look at the information on this previous deletion request for a similar image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Robert_Birmelin_in_NYC_Studio.jpg. Do I need to submit the same permissions paperwork for this image as I did for that one? Basically, this is the same image just higher resolution. Both the photographer and the artist approved the former image, and they will approve this one if necessary. But I'd like to be able to have the permissions carry over. Please let me know if this works. 173.56.76.145 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC) MarinaNebro (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you need to submit permissions. Timtrent (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Timtrent. I will get the permissions in again. Please give me a few days to reach the creators. MarinaNebro (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarinaNebro even if the picture is deleted in the interim period it is perfecty posisble to have it restored with correct permissions lodged. Commons is particularly strict, see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle Timtrent (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per OTRS agent. E4024 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2021 (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.

من آن را به اشتباه آپلود کردم — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassiibb (talk • contribs) 08:02, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it incorrectly
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I understand from time to time beautiful pics in Commons find customers and suddenly uploaders remember they uploaded them wrongly, after several years... (? :) This was just a joke, licenses cannot be withdrawn. --E4024 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hanooz 23:47, 8 April 2021 (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.

error license Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nominationm copyvio-suspected. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2021 (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 User:Leontrotskyekk

edit

Fictional "alternate History" Files by User:Leontrotskyekk. This is unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. --Jahobr (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 02:34, 11 April 2021 (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 Ondiguy (talk · contribs)

edit

Out of scope people - none of these are used anywhere, nor has the uploader made any other edits globally.

Elli (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 02:35, 11 April 2021 (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 Innuluv21 (talk · contribs)

edit

Self-promotion, out of scope. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.

Achim (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 02:37, 11 April 2021 (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 HKBUlibrary (talk · contribs)

edit

Missing evidence of the permission of original author. COM:OTRS permission is necessary.

SCP-2000 14:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 02:40, 11 April 2021 (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.

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 02:45, 11 April 2021 (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 out of project scope. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 21:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination; likely to be self-promotion. --Ahmadtalk 03:22, 11 April 2021 (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.

While the sculpture itself may be in the public domain, the photographs of it are licensed under non-free non-commercial licenses, PD-art also does not apply to 3D art.

Dylsss (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2021 (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 JECason (talk · contribs)

edit

The license is too restrictive, see https://www.macfound.org/creative-commons. essentially restricts commercial use and derivative use, unless you are a media organisation, then you only need to give attribution.

Dylsss (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the MacArthur Foundation licensing page, Wikipedia/Wikimedia would fall under the broad definition of a media organization so the CC-BY license of this Mar Arthur Fellow (Sven Haakanson) would apply. Shackpoet (talk)

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.

Поскольку Бессмыслица Dmi2002 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (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.

Not an "own work". Photo of a photo or taken from somewhere. E4024 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (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.

Small image with Facebook EXIF AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (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.

Self nominate, bad SVG code, do not render correctly and will be replaced with PNG versions.

EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2021 (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.

Own work? Who is she? E4024 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (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.

5 KB "own work"? Even WhatsApp uses larger files... E4024 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked closely with Jayde and she herself aided in uploading the photos, if there is a better way to do this I would appreciate advice

Please read COM:OTRS. --E4024 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (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 Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk · contribs)

edit

These sculptures are on exhibit at the annual three-week-long Sculpture-by-the-Sea festival in Australia. They are all tagged with {{FoP-Australia}}. That tag includes " otherwise than temporarily". Since three weeks is clearly temporary, FoP does not apply and these images all infringe on the sculptors' copyrights.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:15, 26 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.

Files uploaded by Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk · contribs)

edit

Images are licensed under non-free non-commercial, no derivative licenses.

Dylsss (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (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.

Uploaded by myself with an improper license. Copyright held by the Inn National Development Party. CentreLeftRight 03:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2021 (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.

Personal photo and out of scope of Wikipedia education policy - IndrajitDas 04:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2021 (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.

Personal photo and out of scope of Wikipedia education policy - IndrajitDas 04:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2021 (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.

Personal photo and out of scope of Wikipedia education policy - IndrajitDas 04:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2021 (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.

Subjected to copyright - IndrajitDas 04:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2021 (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.

Restaurant promotional image - IndrajitDas 04:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2021 (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.

Self-Promotional, Out of scope - IndrajitDas 05:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2021 (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.

Promotional and out of scope IndrajitDas 05:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2021 (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.

Not freely licensed, seems to have been uploaded in good-faith but misunderstood the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per nom, copyvio of https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Kazuma_Kiryu .   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: procedural close - already deleted. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2021 (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.

COM:Derivative work of a life-sized installation of Silver Swan soy sauce, a still-active soy sauce brand in our country. Either this is a no FOP issue or an issue on models (User:Elcobbola/Models: "Models are considered sculptural works and are, therefore, eligible for copyright protection.").

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem input by Judgefloro

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

  • "Given the subject, they do seem in scope to me. But even if one would not agree with that, Commons users, especially those with far over a million edits, are (or should be) allowed some personal files that are more or less connected to their editing. While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC).:
  • I would say that they're within scope since they are directly related to the work that the person is doing on this project. When I have done something similar I did a slightly different thing, opting to use file's history to preserve the permission xxx . ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • +1 to in-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)" Judgefloro (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 10:06, 11 March 2021 (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.

COM:Derivative work of an ad with underlying image of a church. No applicable FOP in the Philippines.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2021 (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.

Out of scope: obviously Argentina is not part of the EU, so this map is never going to be legitimially used to portray the EU. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2021 (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.

No permission. The original author is 林銘鋒, not Taiwan Railways Administration. SCP-2000 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

臺灣鐵路管理局於新聞稿發布的圖片皆適用政府資料公開條款,是合法使用此圖片,圖片來源[1]。(Will not speak English, ask for help translation.(Google translation))--鐵路1 (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@鐵路1 They are not the original author of this photo, thus the license cannot affect on it. SCP-2000 12:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 DeleteDidn't know the file is cropped from a Facebook post without attribution...廣九直通車 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車: Might be {{FoP-Taiwan}}? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 Can't. The image was not released under free license. SCP-2000 04:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (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.

Used for self promotion. The user name is the name of the CEO of the production company called Crofick. MexTDT (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (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.

Used for promotion. MexTDT (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (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.

Used for promotion. MexTDT (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (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.

Used for promotion MexTDT (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (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 User:Orbitalbuzzsaw

edit

Fictional "alternate History" Files by User:Orbitalbuzzsaw. This is private artwork for a fantasy sandbox project, no educational value → out of scope. The election maps are for the far future and obviously fake. I found no evidence that there are special "New England" party logos in reality. There is one photo mixed in File:Thispersondoesnotexist-1.png, i doubt it is useful. --Jahobr (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2021 (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.

This is a CD cover, which requires creativity, so it is protected. I do not see permission for use on Commons, so this is not legitimate use. JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (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.

taken from artist twitter account Mannivu · 10:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2021 (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.

"alternate History" fictional map. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2021 (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.

"alternate History" fictional flag. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope Jahobr (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2021 (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.

Fictional "alternate History" map. This is unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope Jahobr (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (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.

Fictional "alternate History" election results. This is unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Here the real result for comparison File:House_of_Commons_2005_Election.svg Jahobr (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (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.

out of scope: unused image showing some handwriting of dubious relevance; while the description elaborates on some file "PDF.js" Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2021 (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.

unused advertising image Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2021 (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.

The uploader reverted my addition of {{Copyvio}} with edit summary telling me to "Read https://www.jkt48stuff.com/terms-of-service/". The page says that they are licensed under a non-free non-commercial license CC-BY-NC-SA which is not compatible with Commons policy.

Dylsss (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The URL clearly stated: "JKT48Stuff is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Copyleft and/or other applicable law protect this work." Stop messing around. Flix11 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it is licensed under a license which is not compatible on Commons, how about you have a look at Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses where it says the license is "Not ok" and Commons:Licensing#Forbidden_licenses where it says that the license is forbidden. Please don't tell me to "stop messing around" when you are the one who doesn't have a clue. Dylsss (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2021 (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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2021 (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.

Building from the 1950s, so the architect can't have been dead for 70 years yet.

Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (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.

No Panorama Freedom in Latvia, built by V.V.Shnitnikov who died in 1996.

A.Savin 21:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Согласно статье 1276 четвёртой части Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации — в России и других государствах бывшего СССР:

пункт 2. Допускается свободное использование путем воспроизведения и распространения изготовленных экземпляров, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю, доведения до всеобщего сведения в форме изображений произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и произведений садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, или видных из этого места.[1]

Kalnroze (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 8 September 2016 (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.

Latvian FOP disallows commercial uses of images of architecture and public art like sculptures and monuments still in copyright, not OK per Commons:Licensing. The building according to w:Latvian Academy of Sciences was designed by architects Osvalds Tīlmanis (d. 1980), Vaidelotis Apsītis (d. 2007), and Kārlis Plūksne (d. 1973), so still within the 70 years posthumous copyright term.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 10:09, 12 April 2021 (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.

No COM:FOP in the Philippines. Subject is a work called DNA Tree of Life designed by Dominic Galicia and Tina Periquet and was unveiled in 2017 (source).

Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. plicit 12:48, 13 April 2021 (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.

Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 12:46, 13 April 2021 (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.

Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 09:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 12:46, 13 April 2021 (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.

Com:Derivative work of banners and posters containing underlying images.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also from @Ramon FVelasquez: File:Guiguinto,Bulacanjf6855 26.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, need further study; the photo was taken to inform as note on the Bulacan Roman Catholic Diocese new assignment, since 6 years already passed, to wit : Fr. Santos is the incumbent while outgoing Fr. Rivera is now in Mt. Carmel of Sabang Baliuag; I went there to see Fr. Cenon but he just left according to his secretary;
Maybe, it would be better to use this if appropriate, since the picture was posted only to inform of the new assigments: "Made a mistake : Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as speedy | reason here." JFVelasquez Floro (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. plicit 12:52, 13 April 2021 (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.

No COM:FOP in the Philippines. Subject is a poster of a movie released only in 2016.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. plicit 12:49, 13 April 2021 (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.

No COM:FOP in the Philippines. Subject is a copyrighted tarpaulin display which is itself a COM:DW of various photographs.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. plicit 12:48, 13 April 2021 (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 Landongoyo (talk · contribs)

edit

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 12:54, 13 April 2021 (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 CrimsonC 02 (talk · contribs)

edit

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 12:51, 13 April 2021 (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.

Probable Copyright Infringement Edu! (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 12:45, 13 April 2021 (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.

vanity mirror pic used in rejected en WP draft. Out of scope Timtrent (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 03:31, 14 April 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: d|File:2021 Pham Minh Chinh.png
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> PNG). -- Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination and found on web at https://vtv.vn/chinh-tri/tom-tat-tieu-su-thu-tuong-chinh-phu-pham-minh-chinh-20210405150933027.htm.  JGHowes  talk 14:35, 14 April 2021 (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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:07, 15 April 2021 (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.

No more picture Navigator84 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete COM:CSD#G8. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:07, 15 April 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by HyperGaruda as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted trade mark above COM:TOO. Incompatible terms of use. Pbrks (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination - Readded speedy delete, clearly lies above COM:TOO UK. Pbrks (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by AntiCompositeNumber. --Minoraxtalk 05:09, 15 April 2021 (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 EttoreFrigo (talk · contribs)

edit

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2021 (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 EttoreFrigo (talk · contribs)

edit

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: actually the ticket asked for deletion of these copyrighted books. Ruthven (msg) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (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.

Out of scope, personal photographs, see former deletion request on User talk:Steven&Youri JopkeB (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 09:41, 16 April 2021 (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.

Subi por error la imagen esta no es la que tenia los derechos libres Karlalhdz (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Racconish at 07:26, 16 April 2021 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 14:29, 16 April 2021 (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.

Its license haven't expired yet. Just Sayori (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 08:04, 19 April 2021 (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.

Its license haven't expired yet. Just Sayori (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 08:04, 19 April 2021 (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.

その根拠 広報用の写真 Taiyaki2427 (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyright violation. --JuTa 02:54, 20 April 2021 (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.

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. The building was designed by architects w:Lev Rudnev (d. 1956) and V.O. Munts (date of death unknown). Permission from their heirs is required, via COM:OTRS. Noncommercial FOP of Azerbaijan is not OK per Commons:Licensing.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The posthumous copyright term for Azerbaijan is 70 years p.m.a.. So using Rudnev's death year, 1956+70+1 (to complete the calendar)= January 1, 2027. Unfortunately, there's no inmediate information on when Munts died or if he is still alive today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iifar: So these may be considered to restore in 2045? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2021 (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.

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. The building was designed by architects Lev Rudnev (d. 1956) and V.O. Munts (d. 1974). Noncommercial FOP of Azerbaijan is not OK per Commons:Licensing.

User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination; no OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2022 (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.

While the advert above may be simple and the image of Erap Estrada is from the city government, the lower ad containing an image of Pope Francis may not be government work. It is indicated that it is sponsored by Sinophil Group of Companies. Result: COM:Derivative work of an advertisement containing an image of Pope Francis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:57, 4 May 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Djam N'Bisso as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This picture is not an Algerian photograph, it's from a French journal and the copyrights currently belong to "Union Française Photographique" (Source= https://archives.seinesaintdenis.fr/ark:/naan/a011551966247sYTPyF) The picture also happens to be unrelated to what the uploader describes it as being (1945 Setif massacre), as it actually depicts another massacre (1955 Philippeville massacre). The source given by uploader is from some internet website that used this picture randomly to illustrate an article about Setif. Due to this mislabeled pic, many wiki pages in various languages are currently unwittingly spreading misinformation. Appears to be covered by {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}} AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the copyright laws that apply are the ones of the country where the work was first published and not those of the country where the photograph was taken. If a Swedish photographer takes a photograph in Algeria and then publishes it in a Swedish newspaper, I'm pretty sure it's Swedish copyright laws that apply and not Algerian ones. Thus I don't think this photograph is covered by {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}} as claimed. Djam N'Bisso (talk) 8:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It's the copyright law of Algeria that applies. If a AFP photographer or some other press photographer takes a picture in Algeria and the photo is then simultaneously published in French, German, Canadian, American, British and Japanese newspapers, it's not the French, German, Canadian, British or Japanese copyright laws that applies, it's the law of the country where the picture was taken. Furthermore, it is not because the Union française photographique says it owns the copyright on this or that picture that it actually owns it. --Lubiesque 16:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a photo taken by AFP in Canada and then published simultaneously in 200 dailies and/or TV networks across the word. What copyright law applies? Mexican (100+ years), French (70+ years) or Djiboutian (25+ years)? I think it's the Canadian law (50+ years) that applies, even if that photo was never published in Canada. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this photograph was NOT published simultaneously in various magazines across the world. It was published in a French newspaper in 1955 and was never pulished anywhere else (being used by random cheap internet blogs and twitter posts =/= being published). And from what I looked up about how photographic copyrights work (Berne Convention...etc), it is absolutly not tied to the location where it was shot. Never ever, it's always about the country in which it's published.Djam N'Bisso (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It DEFINITLY isn't covered by {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}, for it isn't an Algerian photograph. Here's what the Berne Convention (basis of international copyrights agreements) state about how the country of origin of a work is defined: "Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works first published in such a State)" [2] This photograph was first published in France, therefore French copyrights laws apply and not Algerian ones.Djam N'Bisso (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC
There isn't a shred of evidence that this photograph was first published in France (a highly unlikely scenario when one knows that France was particularly eager to hide the atrocities perpetrated in Algeria). Like I said: the fact that it is used everywhere (in and outside Algeria) without attribution is the ultimate proof that it is covered by {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided more than enough proofs (an official French government website). This photograph was taken by French reporter Robert Lambotte and first published in France on 24 August 1955 in the French newspaper "L'humanité" for which he was working. Here's a picture of the newspaper [3] if you need more "proofs" Djam N'Bisso (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same baseless assertions won't turn them into facts and that picture (coming from an unreliable source) is meaningless. In the meantime, here are two reliable sources[4][5] that prove that what you said above about "random cheap internet blogs and twitter" is wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My assertions are anything but baseless and my sources are reliable. I provided a French governement website that stores the archives of the French newspaper that took and first published that picture, with extensive infos and the high quality version. I also provided a picture of this newspaper the day it first published that picture on 24 August 1955. Meanwhile, all you have provided is websites that, in the 2010s, amateurishly used a very low quality version of the picture (without giving any single info or even caption about it) to illustrate articles about another event they had no good picture of. Djam N'Bisso (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If saying that "the photograph was taken by French reporter Robert Lambotte" while linking to a website that says the author is unknown is not a baseless assertion, I certainly don't know what is.
Francesoir for instance, attributes the image to a video (screen capture). The video in question (by France 2) where this image is shown @50s, talks about (@30s) "rare images shown in Algeria".
Anyway, I said what I had to say and I don't intend on wasting any more time on this. M.Bitton (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was first published in Algeria, it would be PD, and it was first published in France it would not be. The link provided above almost certainly proves it was first published in France; if there is some doubt whether it was first published in that newspaper, the precautionary principle applies and it should be deleted. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some hard evidence that the photo was published outside of France before 24 August 1955. @AntiCompositeNumber: Any idea when the French copyright would expire? Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on if the actual human author is known or not. The archive linked in the nom says the human author is unknown, but User:Djam N'Bisso has named Robert Lambotte as the author. If the author is unknown, French copyright term is pub+70, so it would become free in France after 2025. If the author is known, then it's 70 years from their death. A quick search suggests 1984, so free in France after 2054. Neither clears the URAA date (1996), so US copyright runs for 95 years from publication (until the end of 2050) unless simultaneously published in the US without compliance with US formalities. Worst case scenario is undelete in 2055, best case scenario (if first published in France) is undelete in 2051. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}} doesn't apply since the picture was first published in France ; note also that it has been taken on de jure French national territory / juridiction and that the independence of Algeria doesn't make its laws on copyright apply on a retroactive way --Omar-toons (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per discussion. COM:EVID requires "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate [...] that the file is in the public domain" (underline added) and "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain." (underline added) All that the uploader bothered to provide is a link to the raw image, which is entirely unacceptable sourcing and provides no evidence whatsoever regarding the country of first publication. The links offered in support of retention (e.g., [6][7][8]) appear merely to reference the country in which the image was taken (or a film shown--which is not publication, let alone first publication), which is neither in dispute nor responsive to the issue of country of first publication. Credible evidence has been provided that Algeria is not the country of first publication, and no genuine analysis or evidence has been provided regarding why this evidence is incorrect or why it should be considered subordinate to other claims (i.e., even if the aforementioned links purporting to support retention referenced country of first publication, which they do not, we would still be faced with a COM:PRP issue.). --Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 4 May 2021 (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.

Blurry, tilted. Out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Anthere at 22:35, 4 Mai 2021 UTC: Per a Deletion Request --Krdbot 02:11, 5 May 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by GuillaumeG as Copyvio (copyvio) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Anthere at 22:34, 4 Mai 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 02:12, 5 May 2021 (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.

Unused redundant image to File:4224Novaliches, Quezon City Roads Landmarks 20.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:30, 7 May 2021 (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.

Wall painting / mural in Baliwag. Freedom of panorama is not provided in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:31, 7 May 2021 (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.

Subject is a 1976 work by Ramon Orlina who is still alive. There is also no COM:FOP in the Philippines. Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:31, 7 May 2021 (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.

Subject is a 1976 work by Ramon Orlina who is still alive. There is also no COM:FOP in the Philippines. Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:31, 7 May 2021 (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.

誤ってアップロードしてしまったため いろは団地 (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.. Uploader claimed that date of first publication was 8 December 1916 with the author of Magrini Magriapan. That date would put us in {{PD-US-expired}}, but does not fully account for the country of origin. I also couldn't find a date of death for Magriapan. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: missing essential info. --P 1 9 9   12:59, 12 May 2021 (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.

No COM:FOP in the Philippines. Subject is a 1971 work by Ricardo C. Aguilar who is apparently still alive as of the taking of this photo because the note under the painting does not mention a death year just a birth year (1908). Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Mr. Aguilar has probably passed away since it would be unlikely (although not impossible) for him to reach the age of 113. Despite that, assuming that he died the same year the painting was made, then it would still be copyrighted in the Philippines until next year (1971+51=2022) and in the US until at least 2067 (1971+96). Howhontanozaz (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. plicit 03:11, 14 May 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by JWilz12345 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While this is a derivative of a government-published ad, DENR used Google Earth imagery for the map of their ad. Copyvio. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. plicit 03:09, 14 May 2021 (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.

Not an own work. He was long dead when this file was claimed to be made by the uploader. E4024 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2021 (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.

PDF is licensed under a non-free non-commercial license. Dylsss (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2021 (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.

10 KB. Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2021 (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.

Own work? E4024 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no basis to dispute whether the imagery is the author's own work. The tire images are an assortment of old tires and the text boxes are within the capabilities of someone using a graphic program. A search of imagery on this topic shows that most illustrations of sidewall markings use graphic images, not photographs. A professional rendition on this topic would presumably use photographs of new tires. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I should do to prove that the file is my own work? I still have the original photos and the Excel file used to do the collage. I personally took these photos in the tire warehouse I work at, in Canada. LeMichael8594 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. No problem. Keep. --E4024 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)--E4024 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Masur (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2021 (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.

While the signature itself may be in the public domain, there is no evidence that the picture, which has originality and is subject to its own copyright, is also free. Dylsss (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As from the view of this photo, the object seen simply as a pair of concentric circles, seems de minimis. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about a normal photo of a 3d object found "somewhere in the net. Doesn't matter whether the signature is or not PD, as we are talking about whole file. "De minimis" applies to FoP and so on, but not to whole images. Masur (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2021 (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.

Duplicate of "File:Lu rebellamentu di Sichilia - Palermo (1882).djvu" Sir Beluga (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2021 (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.

PDF is licensed under non-free non-commercial license. Dylsss (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete *sigh* That professional, government entities, can have such a hard time with copyright and licensing…
    The work is labelled as being CC-BY 4.0 in the copyright statement, and then tagged with the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 dedication in the footer. Their website also describes their approach to copyright as "When information from this website is used in any context, the source must be credited to www.classificationoffice.govt.nz …" (i.e. CC BY; no mention of -NC for their own work, just third party stuff used by permission). In other words, it is likely that the intent was CC BY, but at some point CC BY-NC-SA was added instead. Possibly lawyers stepped in or something. Since -NC-SA are additional restrictions on top of CC BY, there is no inherent conflict between the two statements, so we cannot assume that either are acceptable (it is clearly not an intent to multi-license). In other words, we will have to delete this as incompatibly licensed (-NC) unless someone can get a clarification from the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
    @Neckstells: Any interest in taking that on? In order to keep this on Commons we would need them to either update the PDF directly on their website with a clear licensing statement, or follow the COM:OTRS process. It will not be sufficient to just email them and get a response back (email is too easy to fake). In either case the limitation on commercial use is the problem: CC BY (Attribution) and -SA (ShareAlike) are fine, but -NC (Non Commercial use) is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons policy.

Deleted: per nomination, for more than 1.5 month none action was taken - also, it is unused file. --Masur (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (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.

Copyright violation NMW03 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (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.

This could be a screenshot of an image - IndrajitDas 04:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Could be, but also could be a loq quality, cell phone image. Looks amateurish enough. Let's assume some good faith. --Masur (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2021 (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 description page blanked by original uploader; assuming to be a request for deletion. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File description page blanked by original uploader; assuming to be a request for deletion. Lyndon.otlogetswe (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Krorokeroro as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.showa-note.co.jp/barcodemaster/common/img/banner.jpg Vulphere 08:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: below COM:TOO#Japan. --Thibaut (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2021 (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.

COM:Derivative work - underlying image. Seems recent, and missing permission from the person who created it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:54, 29 May 2021 (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.

COM:Derivative work - underlying image. Seems recent, and missing permission from the person who created it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:54, 29 May 2021 (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.

Not own work; obvious copy of preexisting work, and there's no documentation on Commons about when it was made and where it was copied from. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: origin has been provided, clearly PD. --VIGNERON (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2021 (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.

Same subject as that at Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Museum of Natural History (47752670972).jpg. Restore/undelete only if FOP is formally and officially introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. plicit 04:41, 9 July 2021 (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.

No COM:FOP in the Philippines. Subject is a 1972 work by en:David Ashton (botanist) who died only in 2005. Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. plicit 04:53, 9 July 2021 (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.

Highly redundant images to those already at Category:Quirino Highway (NLEX–Regalado Highway segment). All are also COM:NOTUSED.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:34, 28 August 2021 (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.

Wrong information Bdhuyvn (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not a valid rationale for deletion, plus {{FoP-Vietnam}} applies (although, it may be problemic). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr URL link is dead, but the image is license-verified by the bot. Could someone check the Flickr image via archive.org or other website archival sites? Or is the indicated URL wrong or mistyped? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure) Deleted by Fitindia. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2021 (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.

Mexican film with copyright 187.244.118.197 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Bundled into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miros.jpg. --King of ♥ 18:45, 29 September 2021 (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.

unlikley to be the work of the uploader as subject died in 1938 Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2021 (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.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --plicit 13:45, 8 October 2021 (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.

No FoP in Japan for 3D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. plicit 05:47, 9 October 2021 (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.

I am the uploader, and I intend to replace this file with a .djvu version. Sir Beluga (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Beluga: If you had tagged the file for speedy deletion on 4 April you could have gotten it as "Author's request". But now I don't think the DR will end with delete, because…
Why delete it? You can just upload the DjVu in parallel and use that. Commons allows hosting both PDF and DjVu versions of such scans. The two formats are useful for different purposes so having both will usually be an advantage. --Xover (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, upload the djvu and use it on Wikisource if you like. Ruthven (msg) 11:01, 13 October 2021 (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.

Images are not censored, so as long the image is being used for educational purposes. This photo is not being used for educational purposes but for a userbox indicating an editor likes black hair. There are many photos of people with black hair on Wikipedia that don't show much skin as this photo. I also would like to add that the userbox User:AKMask/salvage is far more larger than most userboxes as if the the editor who made it wanted to show more than just black hair. Overall, it's in violation of COM:CENSOR. Jerm (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tm There’s a difference between policy and a essay. This deletion is based on policy. Likewise, there's a difference between an argument and a rant. An argument is logical, it can be backed with evidence to support one's reasoning. A rant is just as you said, IDONTLIKEIT. And clearly, you don't like this deletion request. What you like or don't like doesn't matter. It's about policy, and in this case, a clear violation of COM:CENSOR. Tell me, how could this image which has been around for ten/eleven years be used for educational purposes? Is the person in the photo a renown nudist? If so, where is her article? Don't tell me the article Nudity needs more photos. Jerm (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What i like or dont like is irrelevant to the case in point, but what you like or not is relevant as, by your own admission, you dont like this image being in use in a template and the reasons are because it shows to "much skin" and for the thumbail being bigger than usual, so this is much a IDONTLIKEIT as it can be. No one is forcing you to use this image and yet your the one trying to censor its use for no more than invalid reasons. What is that than nothing more some prude reasons to try and censor this image?
First, your "rationale" to deletion is not based in policy or arguments as the only semblance is merely a generic link to COM:CENSOR, without quoting any text of it or arguing from there, so your the one that is making a rant and not an argument, as you yourself said, you dont like this image being in use in a template and the reasons to not like it for showing to "much skin" and for being
Also, none of your arguments to delete are backed up by Commons:Project scope. First this file is in use and Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project scope is pretty clear as stated that "A media file that is in use (...) is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like . Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.", or for short a file in use in a template is automatically in scope. Even if it was not in use, these is not a valid reason to delete, has stated in thousands of decades of deletion requests, so your arguments of this not being in use are mute as not based in policy.
And about the subject of this image, COM:CENSOR is pretty clear as "Commons is not censored, and legitimately includes content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive (...) (and) means that a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons.". As file is clearly in scope, per categories for example and for being in use, this DR is nothing more than an attempt to censor because of nothing more than prude reasons. Tm (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tm That generic link COM:CENSOR falls under COM:SCOPE, and I quote from COM:CENSOR:
  • The counterpoint to this, is that the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose.
  • A balance has to be struck between accepting useful media files with legitimate educational content that some may find offensive, and not allowing Commons to be used as a general-purpose media-hosting service (like Flickr, Photobucket, YouTube, etc.), without regard for the project's stated goals. The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and as a public service freely accessible to everyone.

-

You also have not answered any of my questions. Jerm (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You do not quote, you copy verbatim a part, without any arguments by you. And what questions did you make? Images of the same kind of image and author were kept, so here, besides Commons not being censored and file being in use, is another proofs of scope, for images where there were attempts to delete them for the same or similar "reasons":
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leaning on Barn Doors.png
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brunette model Wisdom standing partially nude in a garden (full).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude brunette before a tree.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude brunette with flowers.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude redhead on beach 3.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slim brunette 2.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Save the Redwoods.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wisdom Swimming.jpg
So, not once, but eight times, were similar files of the same author kept, for images being in scope, so these are another ways of showing, besides what was stated above, that this is nothing more than a attempt to censor Commons and Wikipedia for nothing more than prude and invalid reasons. Tm (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tm Not only are you neglecting transparency when it comes to policy, you are still avoiding my questions. Yes, I copied and pasted policy, so this should be much more clearer than cherry-picking policy. Jerm (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: can be used potentially for educational purpose. Ruthven (msg) 11:05, 13 October 2021 (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.

The source URLs do not function. Therefore I could not reach the original source. I have my doubts that a US Navy photographer would take this pic, as part of his/her official duties. It is an old file. If you do not want to lose time digging about it, I will understand and not insist; but I will still have my doubts about if this crop is from a free-to-upload image. E4024 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: widthdrawn. Ruthven (msg) 11:05, 13 October 2021 (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.

Derivative work copyright violation: no freedom of panorama in Indonesia and image lacks permission from the architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (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.

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (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.

Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: metadata were deleted by software. it's a crop from File:Kate_Brown_(D).jpg. Ruthven (msg) 11:07, 13 October 2021 (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.

Illustration by Tone Kralj (1900-1975) Sporti (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (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.

Illustration by Tone Kralj (1900-1975). Sporti (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (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.

One of the source files, File:MOMOTAROU - panoramio.jpg, has been deleted. (reason: No FoP in Japan for 3D works.) Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:09, 13 October 2021 (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.

No more picture Navigator84 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: empty file. Ruthven (msg) 11:10, 13 October 2021 (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.

Clearly not own work Minoraxtalk 10:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:10, 13 October 2021 (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.

Project ended, author no longer wants to be associated (GDPR applies) VorteXLP (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Please write to privacy@wikimedia.org if there are privacy realted issues with this flag. Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 13 October 2021 (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.

Project ended, author no longer wants to be associated (GDPR applies) VorteXLP (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Please write to privacy@wikimedia.org if there are privacy realted issues with this flag. Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 13 October 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Yuraily Lic as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: 1910's photo. Obviously not own work.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image likely PD-old/PD-Art. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file is copy of a original photography from 1910 which i have in a family album. The original image had been taken by my grandfather Karl Lembke (1886 - 1917) . He was a german navy officer in China 1908 - 1910. I do not recognize any Copyvio--WikiTL65 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of any copyvio here, however a simplistic reading of the description would be confused, as the dates are inconsistent with the uploader being the photographer, thus able to grant a CC licence.
This should never have been raised as a speedy deletion. It's a simple and commonplace issue, with an easy solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment When I saw this file, the status of this file was
source: own work
author: WikiTL65
license: CC-BY-SA-4.0.
This status implies plagiarism by the uploader. If the correct information is provided and the appropriate license is granted, it will be possible to keep this file. Now, the license has changed, but the source and author have not. I think this status is still not correct. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formally you are correct. However, when one has the feeling that an image is likely already in the public domain, it's more appropriate to try to get the status/description corrected. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio, Thank you for your comment. I think I'll do as you say. WikiTL65 is polite and understanding person. However, there are some users who are not. It's laborious for such users. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I changed the status of the file to
source: private photo album of uploader
author: Karl Lembke
license: PD-old license tag
Sorry for unappropriate information in the first place.--WikiTL65 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiTL65, Thank you for your understanding. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-US-expired. Ruthven (msg) 11:13, 13 October 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Yuraily Lic as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: 1909's photo. Obviously not own work.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image probably o.k. per PD-old/PD-Art. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a copy of 4 original photographies from 1909 which i have in a family album. The original images had been taken by my grandfather Karl Lembke (1886 - 1917) . He was a german navy officer in China 1908 - 1910. I do not recognize any Copyvio.--WikiTL65 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of any copyvio here, however a simplistic reading of the description would be confused, as the dates are inconsistent with the uploader being the photographer, thus able to grant a CC licence.
This should never have been raised as a speedy deletion. It's a simple and commonplace issue, with an easy solution. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment When I saw this file, the status of this file was
source: own work
author: WikiTL65
license: CC-BY-SA-4.0.
This status implies plagiarism by the uploader. If the correct information is provided and the appropriate license is granted, it will be possible to keep this file. Now, the license has changed, but the source and author have not. I think this status is still not correct. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I changed the status of the file to
source: private photo album of uploader
author: Karl Lembke
license: PD-old license tag
Sorry for unappropriate information in the first place.--WikiTL65 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiTL65, Thank you for understanding. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The uploader changed the status of the file to the correct. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-US-expired. Ruthven (msg) 11:13, 13 October 2021 (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.

These images are part of a large Flickr upload, but do not describe who the band is. Without that information they are not educationally useful. Delete per COM:PARTYPICS.

Senator2029 13:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep South by Southwest is not a private party. Just because we don't exactly know what band it is doesn't mean we'll just throw away the pictures. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Ãs uploader. Per Multichill. Clearly South by Southwest is not, by a far and long shot a private party, and such COM:PARTYPICS will never apply, not even in a thousand years. Tm (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The band is !!! (aka Chk Chk Chk). Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 11:14, 13 October 2021 (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 OMCE123 (talk · contribs)

edit

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:14, 13 October 2021 (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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. clearly in scope: the party was governing Italy from 1945 to 1990. (for the logo, see File:DC Party Logo (1968-1992).svg. ). Ruthven (msg) 11:15, 13 October 2021 (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.

Picture way too small and low quality. It is really hard to know if it is really that person it is supposed to depict. No educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. Also unused. Myloufa (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, low quality.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:15, 13 October 2021 (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.

No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Please write to COM:VRT. Ruthven (msg) 11:16, 13 October 2021 (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.

no value, blurred image of an info panel of some sort Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:16, 13 October 2021 (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.

No EXIF data, low resolution. Also, promotional image of a non-notable person. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:16, 13 October 2021 (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.

I have taken the photo, but I don't want it to be available to the public anymore. Andhar310 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's a beautiful picture. I thank you for opening this DR and thus enabling me to see this beauty. Keep. --E4024 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Purely selfish reasons. I have discovered use of the photo where the user might as well pay for it.

Sorry, Commons is not a commercial platform. --E4024 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's why I want it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhar310 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andhar310: The Creative Commons licenses are not revokable. Even if we were to delete it from Commons anybody that has already downloaded it will be free to keep using it for any purpose, including commercially and reuploading it to Commons. For this reason we generally do not delete any image under this rationale, especially not 9 years after the fact. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Photo uploaded in 2012 under a free license. Ruthven (msg) 11:17, 13 October 2021 (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.

Fake license: copied from http://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/handle/1234/151909 , protected by copyright Гдеёж? (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:17, 13 October 2021 (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.

photo of derivative work (information board with text and photo) Stolbovsky (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: blatant copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 11:17, 13 October 2021 (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.

Taken from Facebook. Requires OTRS permission. E4024 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:18, 13 October 2021 (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 Haoreima (talk · contribs)

edit

Every single file, with the exception of File:The Karang Island in the Loktak lake.jpg, is pretty clearly a copy from some other source. The snakes are clearly photos of a book, as are Emoinu; the inscription looks like a video rip (note the 720p resolution and lack of EXIF data) and Laiklik Leima is a tiny, highly artifacted, image for being actually drawn by the user.

Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: The images of the snakes are my own work, which after I have drawn done some better art effects, and then printed in the form of a book page, to make it look smooth.

So, no need for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC) And for the Emoinu and Imoinu, they are the public property, paintings of deities which public are given authorized to use in any form. As I have read from the Wikimedia guidelines, it's ok if the artwork is more than 150 years old. Haoreima (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC) And for Lailik Leima, it's a drawing I did, after which I put some art effect and then scanned through scanner. After that, I did more editing to make look better. But I don't think I have to explain everything for each one by one because I have already stated that they are my own works. Haoreima (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have uploaded works stating that they were own works, and those files have been deleted if other editors, and finally an admin, didn't believe them. You drew the snakes, and then printed them on both sides of a paper, and then decided to upload a scan of that copy, bleed-through and all?
If the artwork is more than 150 years old, then it's not your work. We need to know as much as we can about when and by whom it was made, and where and when it was published.
I stand by my skepticism with Lailik Leima; there's no reason it should be such a tiny, over compressed picture if it's actually your work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I don't know for others' cases. And I don't think it's right or fair that the deletion or un deletion of a file depends on the trust of certain admins. There should be certain specified rules imposed for the protection of the files. But regarding others, it's my choice, sole choice whether to upload a file in a lesser resolution or higher resolution. And one thing, you said "bleed-through". See, it's because the copy was printed in both sides of a page. Actually, I lost my original drawing. That's why, I used the printed one. I don't think I need to explain everything to everyone. It really wastes my time. I have a lot of works in other wiki projects. Seems you will agree with me, now.

Yours sincerely. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: they clearly are not PD-old-100!. Ruthven (msg) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (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.

Own work? Who is she? E4024 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: withdrawn. Ruthven (msg) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (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 with promotional purposes (see the uploader username). Out of project scope.

AlvaroMolina ( - ) 21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination + logos without permission. Ruthven (msg) 11:20, 13 October 2021 (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.

No sources for Source Own work See COM:TOO Brazil O revolucionário aliado (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: below ToO for Brazil. Ruthven (msg) 11:20, 13 October 2021 (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.

Unknown actors from unknown theatre, bad quality. I don't foresee any reasonable educational use. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:21, 13 October 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by EZBELLA as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This work is copyrighted by THAKSIN UNIVERSITY. If you are going to use this logo, you need to get permission from the university. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, PD-TH-exempt does not apply to this logo. Ruthven (msg) 11:22, 13 October 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by EZBELLA as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This work is copyrighted by Walailak University. If you are going to use this logo, you need to get permission from the university. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, PD-TH-exempt does not apply to this logo. Ruthven (msg) 11:22, 13 October 2021 (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.

I have just deleted all other contributions of this uploader as copyright violation. Supposedly this pitcure is not created by the user himself as well: it is very small, and the uploader is from Bulgaria while the portrayed person is from Armenia. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:22, 13 October 2021 (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.

Too small to be useable Titlutin (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no thumb. Besides, there are no EXIF: probable copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 11:23, 13 October 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Andriy.v as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the author is dead less than 70 years ago AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (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.

copyright violation; contemporary artwork; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: : permission needed from the painter. Ruthven (msg) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (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.

Duplicate file available Dksinghvaghela (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: which duplicate file @Dksinghvaghela: ? Use {{Duplicate}} next time. Ruthven (msg) 21:40, 3 November 2021 (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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:40, 3 November 2021 (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.

Possible image with promotional purposes (see description of the file). Out of project scope. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 16:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image description simply defines the person within the image. It is not written for promotion, it is written for describing the person within 7 words. Ktgubur ( - ) 16:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope image. Ruthven (msg) 21:40, 3 November 2021 (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.

unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:40, 3 November 2021 (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.

Olivier VÉRAN, ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, le 6 janvier 2021.jpg Ludovic LP (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier VÉRAN, ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, le 6 janvier 2021.jpg I Doublon Ludovic LP (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 11:10, 13 October 2021 (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.

Because it is Nonsense Yadhukrishna.M.K (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: violates copyrights for works shown. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (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.

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: work of Milena Braniselj (still living, b. 1951). TadejM (t/p) 08:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (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.

copyright violation; artist died in 2002. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (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.

Mexican film with copyright 187.244.118.197 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Casanova50 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Mexican films can work in the US if they were also released on the same or around the years of publishing, however this is not the case for this film "A volar, joven" (1947), IMDb does not cites a released year for this film in the US, prove - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0161215/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_rdat

King of ♥ 18:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted; unsupported license claim; no reason to think it is yet PD in home country. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2021 (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.

Not useful for any encyclopedic purpose. Fictional partition proposal invented by a wikipedian and drawn onto an old map. Hoax/fake. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Geni (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2021 (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.

The license is too restrictive, see https://www.macfound.org/creative-commons. Essentially restricts commercial use and derivative use, unless you are a media organisation, then you only need to give attribution. One image was license reviewed by Innotata, so hopefully they can respond with whether they disagree with them being deleted. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JECason, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cecilia Conrad.jpg.

Dylsss (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm involved only in File:Levy-Paluck 2017 hi-res-photo 1.jpg, of which I uploaded a cropped version. Therefore, I don't have an opinion concerning the involved files (except that my cropped version is superior to the previous uncropped version). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If you look at the page File:Joyce J. Scott.jpg comes from on the Internet Archive you'll see it simply says: "Photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and licensed under a Creative Commons license: CC-BY", linking to the CC website and to a page saying "This permits non- commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution.", with no description of what media means. So they added those terms later. Please exercise such due diligence before making deletion requests.
Creative Commons licenses are not revocable, so we can and should keep those images that were on the site before those terms were added, probably all of these. If there are any images added since, they're marked in a contradictory fashion - since legally it is not possible to add a non-commercial condition to a CC-BY license - but I suppose we should respect the intent of the organization? —innotata 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a conflict in licensing rather than applying a more restrictive license to a non-revocable free license at a later date, two pages, the image page and their licensing page, displaying different terms at the same time (and I would emphaiszise that the image page which says "Photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and licensed under a Creative Commons license: CC-BY", links to their licensing page which says that it is only for use by the "media", regardless of how vague that may be). Even if their website explaining their licensing terms did not define what "media" meant at that time, it is still some sort of restriction. Thus, I still think these should be deleted per COM:PCP. Dylsss (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, their licensing page has always been restrictive, before September 2014, it said that all their content was licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND, from Sept 2014 it was changed to CC-BY for use "by the media" and from April 2018 it was changed to clarify what a media organization meant. As such, it is only possible for this to had been a conflict in licensing, rather than applying a more restrictive license to non-revocable free license. And we do delete images with conflicting license per COM:PCP, for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tieranatomisches Theater Berlin innen.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from Enu, but I am sure there are many more. Dylsss (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows. --Geni (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2021 (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.

1949 ---> likely copyright-protected Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination and own work unlikely. --Geni (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2021 (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.

Superseded by File:Goralenvolk.jpg that bears no watermark and is a higher resolution photo. To be fair this one should probably be overwriten and the other deleted, but now... Aʀvєδuι + 19:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Geni (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Black Kite as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Appears to be crop of a promotional image that existed on copyrighted sites as long ago as 2010, although most of those have since ben deleted - see TinEye report. http://www.gasparinutrition.com/teamgaspari/flexlewis/photos/ appears to be the most likely original source, but it is dead now and the Wayback Machine archives are broken. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Geni (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2021 (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.

Copyright violation? I do not see a real name of a photographer, I do not see permission of the author, the author cannot be dead for at least 70 years because the photograph was dated on 1 January 1960. JopkeB (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   02:55, 18 December 2021 (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.

Sourced on a deleted file. (I could not see that file, but this image does not look like those available in the net, without prejudice to their authenticity.) Therefore a DW? E4024 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This file was not used by any WP; I made it her WD item image and automatically appeared on various WPs. Other than DW, I cannot accept an Ottoman sultan's image as an amateur drawing. Bad of the TV series...

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   02:58, 18 December 2021 (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.

Unknown actors from unknown theatre, bad quality. I don't foresee any reasonable educational use. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Просьба оставить, нет нарушений, использовать в теме Мелитополь, театр. С уважением Стоялов Максим — Preceding unsigned comment added by DENAMAX (talk • contribs) 2021-04-05 02:47 (UTC)
Google Translation: "Please leave, no violations, use in the theme Melitopol, theater. Best regards Stoyalov Maxim" translation added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   02:58, 18 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Андрей Романенко as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Falsely claimed to be an own work: the pictured person died in 1989 being 82 years old, the photograph must be taken in 1960-ies. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   02:59, 18 December 2021 (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.

Dubious "own work" and dubious scope as the file is not used anywhere. E4024 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've added the image to the en wiki article Tahir Allauddin Al-Qadri Al-Gillani which lacked an image. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now should we think that it is an own work of the original uploader? Our precautionay principle says we should not keep such cases, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, why did you feel the claim of {{Own}} is dubious? --Sreejith K (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I see a 22 KB photo file uploaded as "own work", I suspect; I have been criticised for this, but almost all such DRs were closed as delete in spite of several objections. You are an admin, know these things better than me. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Google image and TinEye search did not return anything, so I could not find this image published anywhere before. The file size makes me wonder if it is web resolution, but it could be because of compression or crop. I generally follow Commons:GOODFAITH. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per remark of Sreejith, very old image, probably cropped from own photo. Software at the time often deleted the Exif data. --Ellywa (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2021 - Logodownload.org https://logodownload.org/fluminense-logo-fluminense-escudo/fluminense-logo-escudo/. Likely below TOO in the US, unsure about COM:TOO Brazil. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

© symbol of en:Copyright symbol has no license released. In Brazil = rights reserved .O revolucionário aliado (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. and not used, out of COM:SCOPE, no educational value. --Ellywa (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2021 - Logodownload.org https://logodownload.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/santos-logo-0.png. Likely below TOO in the US, unsure about COM:TOO Brazil AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

© symbol of en:Copyright symbol has no license released. In Brazil = rights reserved .O revolucionário aliado (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Brazil, the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States. So supposedly this logo is above threshold and has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2021 - Logodownload.org https://logodownload.org/flamengo-logo-flamengo-escudo/flamengo-logo-escudo-novo/. Likely below TOO in the US, unsure about COM:TOO Brazil AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

© symbol of en:Copyright symbol has no license released. In Brazil = rights reserved .O revolucionário aliado (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Brazil, the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States. So supposedly this logo is above threshold and has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2021 (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.

If this is in scope, requires OTRS permission from the artist. E4024 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @E4024! This drawing looks like an original work by the user that have uploaded it. Karina Núñez is the portrayed person, that's why her name is in the illustration. It looks like a signature, but isn't the author signature. The author is @PaolaGago87, the person that have created the artwork. Please, indicate if you see a different reason for requiring an OTRS. Thanks. Señoritaleona (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, Señoritaleona, como le va? Lamentablemente aquí no trabajamos con "looks like", o, mejor dicho, "looks like" works for a copyvio suspicion but not for believing "own work". Por lo menos eso es mi convencimiento. Espero que tratando de atenderle en castellano he podido expresarme lo suficientemente bien; total, mi inglés tampoco es brillante. --E4024 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @E4024, gracias por tu respuesta! Los casos de posible copyvio justamente necesitan análisis, por eso dije "looks like", porque a menudo la cuestión requiere investigar y discutir hasta que se determina el problema de copyright. No soy la autora del trabajo, pero presumo que la autora subió un dibujo hecho por ella misma y no por otra persona sin autorización. Haciendo una búsqueda en Google a partir de la imagen, esta no aparece en otro lugar en la web, lo que me lleva a creer que es un trabajo original. Pero si me cuentas por qué se requiere un permiso OTRS eso facilitaría a la autora el poder hacerlo. El dibujo fue subido en el marco de un concurso donde se invitaba a crear ilustraciones originales. Soy organizadora del concurso y justamente me interesa estar segura, dado que claramente no podemos premiar dibujos no originales o que infrinjan copyright. Pero también me gustaría mantener la imagen en Commons y en el artículo de Wikipedia si una autorización vía OTRS lo permite. ¡Gracias de nuevo! Señoritaleona (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP. Uploader did not comment or explain the copyright situation of this image. The signature on the bottom does not correspond with the name of the uploader. No evidence of participating in a contest. --Ellywa (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2021 (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.

Missing publication year. Cannot demonstrate the copyright status meet COM:L SCP-2000 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@林未釋: 那麼它在美國又是什麼版權狀態呢,我感覺這個照片可能牽涉COM:URAA?Then what's its copyright status in the United States, where I feel that this photograph might be affected by COM:URAA? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: The photo falls in PD according of PRC because it is created (much) more then 50 years ago, e.g. before 1961. This can be seen at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#General, citing: "For a work of a legal person ... the protection period for its right of publication shall be 50 years, ending on December 31 of the 50th year after the creation of the work". Therefore the image can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2021 (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.

Public Domain, not a VOA work. Maurice Flesier (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment. Am I missing something here? It is clearly linked to VOA, image appears at said source, and is even labeled public domain on the VOA source. Do we have evidence to dispute this claim? IronGargoyle (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: image is in PD according source website. --Ellywa (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since). Uploader claims that the work is PD, because it is a work of a German government institution. I am not sure whether this applies to logos, such as here. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not as the image lacks a "normative or individual legal stipulation", which would be required under the relevant official works provision of the German Copyright Act. See Bundesgerichtshof [Federal High Court of Germany] 20 July 2006, case I ZR 185/03 Bodenrichtwertsammlung, (2007) 109 GRUR 137 [13]. See further COM:Germany#Section 5(1) works. — Pajz (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Ellywa (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:PACKAGE
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as photo shows a bunch of packages, but none prominently. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Imho this cannot be seen as de minimis, the packages are the major subject of this image. --Ellywa (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2021 (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.

This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted packages in Hong Kong.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as most depicted packages show nothing copyrightable and 1 potentially copyrighted one is not shown prominently. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: small part of packages can be considered de minimis. I will add template to image. --Ellywa (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации от 18 декабря 2006 г. N 230-ФЗ Часть четвёртая (ред. от 12.03.2014) (с изм. и доп., вступ. в силу с 01.01.2015)