Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/03/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![185 File:"Hot Stuff".png](#File:"Hot_Stuff".png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_badge.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
PNG version uploaded, same file Groubonk (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:26, 14 März 2018 UTC: PNG version uploaded, same file --Krdbot 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 91.76.179.106 as Copyvio (copyrighted) Yann (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, false date, copy of https://mounadil.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/stephen-hawking.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angiecortez92 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: What new could be added to existing collection of explicit images?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - also copyvio. --Jcb (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angiecortez92 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:NUDE: low quality
4nn1l2 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
PDF copy of a user page. Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This image is from the 1980's, not 1930 & copy-write of Brian Palmer. [1] [2] Suggest deleting the file. BaomoVW (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Copied from Imgur, Sep 12 2016, 166 views Dispenser (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
لم يتم التحميل المنكسر (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete Obvious. --E4024 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaders request, file is corrupt due to incomplete upload. --Achim (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope per Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site --ghouston (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Por favor borren todos los archivos que subí, se los agradecería mucho.
Subí dos pero me confundí y me revolví tanto por intentar borrarlos yo mismo que al final solo hice nuevas versiones de las mismas.
Todos los archivos que tengo están aquí por error.
Porque subí esta imagen por error Pikachi66 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Por favor borren todos los archivos que subí, se los agradecería mucho.
Subí dos pero me confundí y me revolví tanto por intentar borrarlos yo mismo que al final solo hice nuevas versiones de las mismas.
Todos los archivos que tengo están aquí por error.
Subí también esta otra imagen por error, porfavor borrenla, gracias Pikachi66 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cuantos tiene? --E4024 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Subí dos pero me confundí y me revolví tanto por intentar borrarlos yo mismo que al final solo hice nuevas versiones de las mismas.
Por favor borren todos los archivos que subí, se los agradecería mucho.
Todos los archivos que tengo están aquí por error.
Deleted: Unused, uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Low quality image is likely a copyright violation, as all of the uploader's other images were copyvios as well IagoQnsi (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This image was originally posted to Flickr by http://dirtywhorelebrity.com/ at https://flickr.com/photos/23376889@N07/7119322585. It has been reviewed on 2018-03-14 16:36:47 by FlickreviewR 2, who found the author on the bad authors list. This means that the Flickr user is known to upload copyright violations to their Flickr account and as such this image should be removed from Commons. Knichols98 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:45, 18 März 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: https://www.glamour.com/story/carrie-underwood-reveals-her-t --Krdbot 13:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No contiene información útil Fede Lujilde (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: User's request in own ns. --Achim (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this a copyvio? E4024 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, {{copyvio}}, COM:NETCOPYVIO. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
as an uploader i mistaked in photo and ask for deletion Moosavi74 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Low resolution; blurry. Don't see any possibility of file being educationally useful. hiàn 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope – not educationally useful (unused personal image[s] of uploader). hiàn 00:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope – not educationally useful (unused promotional file). hiàn 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal rights. Too personal and not encyclopedic. Kalbbes (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: public event. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal rights. Too personal and not encyclopedic. Kalbbes (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: public event. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal rights. Too personal and not encyclopedic. Kalbbes (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: public event. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source page uses a non-commercial license. --ghouston (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: 1912: PD-1923. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Derivative of a CC-Zero image, so the copyright's fine, but it appears to be meant for promotional purposes and there's no obvious encyclopedic use here. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very unlikely to be "own work" - from same source as "LinkedIn" profile pic, see also [3]. Image contains Facebook metadata, so possibly copied from FB. Regardless, there is no evidence of permission. (Uploader has history of socking/copyvio at enwiki.) Begoon 04:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sculptor Robert Pouyaud died in 1970. No FOP in France. Benoît Prieur (d) 05:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sculptor Robert Pouyaud died in 1970. No FOP in France. Benoît Prieur (d) 05:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bon, ben , tant pis ! --François GOGLINS (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Désolé. J'adore cette statue en plus :( Dans le domaine public en 2040... --Benoît Prieur (d) 14:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- PS : je me suis permis de faire un extract de la plaque latérale File:Clamecy-FR-58-statue du flotteur-01 - plaque.jpg qui elle ne me semble pas soumise au droit d'auteur. C'est déjà cela. --Benoît Prieur (d) 14:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sculptor Robert Pouyaud died in 1970. No FOP in France. Benoît Prieur (d) 05:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sculptor Robert Pouyaud died in 1970. No FOP in France. Benoît Prieur (d) 05:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The SVG version of this file (file:目-ancient.svg) is uploaded. This file is not used, and its function is replaced by its vector image version. Wargaz (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am the creator and uploader. Please delete it, as it has a SVG version now.Cangjie6 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Photo is apparently from Facebook, but no evidence of permission is provided IagoQnsi (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You can clearly see that it's from his public facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/randy.hillier/. User:RobertsJack
- @RobertsJack: Yes, that's the issue. It's clear that the photo belongs to him, but it's not clear that he's given permission for you to republish the photo under a free license (specifically the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, since that's the license you selected). If he has given permission, then we need to see proof; see COM:OTRS for details on how he can email Wikimedia support to provide permission. --IagoQnsi (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Willfeliz25 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Appears to be a set of photos of unknown people (the uploader?) accompanied with quotations (by the uploader?). Not sure what the quotes are since I don't speak Spanish, but they seem to serve no educational purpose.
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Sed ejemplo.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz La metamorfosis.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Jehová jireh.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz La sabiduría.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Venceré.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Los judas.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz La gloria es de Dios.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Profecia.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz estrategias de Dios.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Yo le creo a Dios.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz Enfócate en tu propósito.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz No juzgues ora.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz El Proceso.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz La iglesia.jpg
- File:Frases célebres de Will Feliz no veas actúa.jpg
IagoQnsi (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, intended purely for advertising Gbawden (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Self-promotion. --Achim (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Singam yogesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope, Commons is not a photo album
- File:Yogiyogesh love.jpg
- File:Sweety yogi.jpg
- File:My sweet.jpg
- File:Lion yogi.jpg
- File:Singamyogesh.jpg
- File:Yogi27yog.jpg
- File:Yogiyogesh.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. E4024 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal something. E4024 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of educational scope.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
privacy please delete this photo Gitiattar (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Maybe too blurred to be educationally usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Owen Pogue (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:ADVERT, uploader is indefblocked on enwp for creating promotional bios including these files. I question the permissions., as they are low-res with little usable EXIF metadata.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe too blurred. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
No source and no author. The date of 1885 in the filename is unexplained, it is not clear if this is the date of publication. The informal "120 year rule" does not apply to works with unknown authors and no credible publication year.
There is no obvious source based on Google image searches. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Info This file was marked as a derived work and having no source in June 2017 by AntiCompositeNumber (talk · contribs). This template was removed a day later by Stas1995 (talk · contribs) and replaced with {{PD-old-assumed}}. The image was marked a no source a second time by Chrissymad (talk · contribs) two hours later, but again three hours after that the template was removed due to "PD-old-assumed". Throughout the author remained "unknown" and the source was left as (incorrectly) "own work". This activity shows a fundamental misunderstanding that death dates of authors are only relevant for known authors, and that PD-old-assumed is not of itself a replacement for being able to verify a publication date. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: {{PD-old-assumed}} is fine here. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ugly picture uploaded by me. I have added better images to the cat and this one is not in use. Therefore please delete it. E4024 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused file taken from the net. E4024 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
unused photo of unidentified girl of unclear authorship, no useful description, definitely wrongly categorised by the uploader (a Polish village). Sole upload, and uploader's coment "lalalalalalalaaaa" raises suspicions as well... Pibwl (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Uploader? The original upload was categorized as Category:Fantasmagoria; that cat was changed recently by an active user. BTW it is a nice pic and reminds innocent little girls in horror films. If it's free let us not delete it, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
bite (gtrr(ggqt 212.198.253.44 09:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The only evidence that the photograph is dated 1880 is the assertion of the uploader. There is no source, no verifiable date, no certainty as to whether there may be a named photographer. The only independent source I can find is Alamy, where Paul Fearn probably uploaded the image from Wikimedia Commons and now demands £11.99 for personal use.
After being hosted on Wikimedia Commons for six months, this is a case study of how {{PD-old-assumed}} is being used as a substitute for an attempt to make a reasonable effort to assess copyright status. Fæ (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep Any photo older than 120 years is presumed to be in the Public Domain by the US Copyright Office. Google Images says the version at http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-london-slum-1880s-163328681.html is "1300 × 1046", so Alamy must have independent information. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Internally, Alamy gives a different resolution that the one you have given here (1843x1356), but for all we know this is a badly scaled up version of the Commons image, a trick we have seen before. The point being that Alamy is an image collation service, not a source, and frequently acts as a mirror for Wikimedia Commons. The Photograph was highly likely to have been originally published in the UK, not the USA. We do not ignore UK law. There remains no evidence for the assertion that this was taken in the 1880s. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a note as requested on the image page. We used this image from an official file as part of a Crown Estate presentation about Octavia Hill. My own belief is that it shows the original Marylebone property in the 1860s before Hill took it on, but if memory serves (I have retired from the public service) there was no conclusive documentation of date on the file, and the official photographer was uncredited (as was standard practice). Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- If the photograph were part of an official survey, it should be possible to confirm that the photograph was taken to become part of a public archive (i.e. "published" under UK law) and that the photographer never was credited, so the normal {{PD-old-70-1923}} is easily met and can be used. If the collection is at the NA, then the whole collection might be something to track down and have released to Wikimedia Commons via one of the wiki-projects based there. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a note as requested on the image page. We used this image from an official file as part of a Crown Estate presentation about Octavia Hill. My own belief is that it shows the original Marylebone property in the 1860s before Hill took it on, but if memory serves (I have retired from the public service) there was no conclusive documentation of date on the file, and the official photographer was uncredited (as was standard practice). Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Internally, Alamy gives a different resolution that the one you have given here (1843x1356), but for all we know this is a badly scaled up version of the Commons image, a trick we have seen before. The point being that Alamy is an image collation service, not a source, and frequently acts as a mirror for Wikimedia Commons. The Photograph was highly likely to have been originally published in the UK, not the USA. We do not ignore UK law. There remains no evidence for the assertion that this was taken in the 1880s. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: {{PD-old-assumed}} is fine here. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FUNtIsWiLqo/WG0p7o-GmhI/AAAAAAAAE78/9kKsMoKOJvw_AVgoTiKybQDh85u1gjeDwCLcB/s1600/Jan%2BMicha%25C5%2582%2BMa%25C5%2582ek-1.jpg, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: source=File:Jan Michał Małek.jpg. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Any medatata, copy of https://www.facebook.com/marcofalaguastax/photos/a.146639388754268.38856.146637618754445/1615013818583477/?type=1&theater Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
From Facebook, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
rhgtnhxmjykg,ul,gkhyfjgtcdhfxdzgxnhfrdctjfykgggyhfgtcufryxetyfrjctudfiyvgukhhgytfcyrtdxfggtcfhygtvjyhgtfvcrdxesdfgtcfrhygtvjuhykiugyjjjzdfsxcgbhj,cgfbhjk 96.5.24.150 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Too bored? Keep --E4024 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Let's the cat off the keyboard. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is already: File:Taiyuan Metro New Logo.png . --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and copied from FB, no permission. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but it is too much COM:PACKAGING. E4024 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted work by Jean Carlu (d. 1997). Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Patrick Rogel: je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous demandez la suppression du logo de la CAF (réalisé par J.Carlu dans les années 20, sans aucun doute) dans l'infobox illustrant l'article homonyme ^^ S'agit-il de créditer l'auteur ? ...ce que je ferai avec plaisir le cas échéant. --Nicolas HEITZ-BRANDT (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bonjour @Nicolas HEITZ-BRANDT: en France, les oeuvres artistiques sont protégées par le droit d'auteur 70 ans après la mort de l'artiste, soit en l'occurrence jusqu'en 2057 pour tous les travaux de Jean Carlu. Donc, à moins d'obtenir l'autorisation des héritiers ou ayants-droit de renoncer à leurs droits, ce fichier ne peut être accepté sur Commons. Cordialement, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
error en el material IORR (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination: uploader's request. --Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious PD rationale. The uploader claimed that the logo is protected by copyright (likely) and published by the copyright holder under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (dubious). Yilku1 replaced the licensing claim with a {{PD-textlogo}} tag and removed the {{no permission since}} tag. The bird drawing is not a simple geometric shape, and there is no evidence to support the claim that it is below the threshold of originality in Colombia. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly above TOO. No evidence this is anything but a copyvio. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
no licence 77.82.19.28 17:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work, as taken from a Sierra Leonean newspaper (here dated 2015) Number 57 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- As an aside, are there any sanctions for editors who falsely upload material claiming to be their own work (i.e. bans from uploading new material)? Number 57 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© 2015 Mark Joseph Hanson, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
We need to do this deletion nomination in order to test deletion notifications for the Commons app. Sorry about that. Misaochan2 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
no permission on the website Andrei (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
already have Waseepbt (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: by Ronhjones. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Not of use. K0x3r (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: poor quality, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
re-uploaded by different user, out of scope, not used Ronhjones (Talk) 19:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Plain text, curriculum vitae. --Achim (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Found at https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/828969455250202624/rVTpKL-W_400x400.jpg, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Far too original/intricate to be classified as simple shapes or text. Codyorb (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Too original/intricate to be classified as PD. Codyorb (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
"The Church of Sweden does not assert copyright over this coat of arms as far as any research has shown" does note mean an image is free from copyright. Unless explicitly stated otherwise the assumption must be that the image is under copyright. (Governmental coats of arms are not automatically free in Sweden). Lokal_Profil 22:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom + these are the arms of an individual Kathisma (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© 2017 Vladimir Opsenica, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© 2017 DJE Images (https://queenandcountrymagazine.co.uk/all/2017/8/8/fiddler-on-the-move), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© DJE Images, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Patrick, I have the permission of DJE images to use this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miklosesteresterhazy (talk • contribs)
- Hi @Miklosesteresterhazy: you should send a permission from the photographer from DJE Images at [email protected]. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
© DJE Images, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Modern art work, needs a license from the artist. --ghouston (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Kusama's worrk is not PD. — Racconish ☎ 20:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Modern art work, needs a license from the artist. --ghouston (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Kusama's work is not PD. — Racconish ☎ 20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© Council of Europe, any permission https://www.google.fr/search?q=%22Jos%C3%A9+Mendes+Bota%22&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO4ofs8uzZAhXDasAKHc0_DUYQ_AUIDSgE&biw=1536&bih=756#imgrc=Alxx1VMPXiF_pM: Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
© 2017 Copyright by The Gypsy Queens. All rights reserved., http://gypsyqueens.com/wp-content/uploads/photo-gallery/gypsy-queens-img-1.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Merged with original Conservatrix (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Per COM:OVERWRITE, " If digital restoration work is being done on a historical document or artwork, the restoration (no matter how minor) should always be uploaded under a new filename from the original file, providing a link back to the source on which it was based in the new file's "other versions" field.". The changes to the original are not, in fact, minor, as they include retouches which alter content. The original should therefore be preserved. I have restored the original file. -- Begoon 02:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Begoon feels it should be separate, then I agree. Request close. - Conservatrix (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Signature of Prodip Kumar Dey, a person who uploads his own images to Commons. E4024 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prodip Kumar Dey.jpg. E4024 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prodip Kumar Dey.jpg. E4024 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Geometrically incorrect: if this is the AlCl3 monomer, the three Cl should be symmetrically around the Al. In this image, it appears the two closest to the viewer are closer to each other and further from the back one. And the whole molecule should be planar, but it appears the back chlorine is above the Cl-Al-Cl plane of the rest. DMacks (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused, and missing all stereochemical detail. Have File:Beta-endorphin.png as higher-quality chemically correct alt DMacks (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect structure: en:Manganese(II,III) oxide is not a molecular substance. DMacks (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Partially agree with you. But Mn3O4 is an empirical formula for hausmannite. --Pion (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Hausmannite isn't a molecular substance either. Ed (Edgar181) 17:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused chemically incorrect (as tagged, and I agree) image. Have multiple Category:Isobornyl acetate alternatives DMacks (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Drawing makes no sense. --Itu (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 17:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Disputed (with source) on talkpage regulation mechanism, and no source supplied for the original. Unused. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I messed up when trying to create a redirect page. I forgot to include "Category" when I first made the redirects. Now this page links to the wrong page. Sorry about this. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work. Cropped from the poster. Insider (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Приветствую Вас, Insider! Если это производная работа, тогда удаляем!!! Ваш Monoklon!! (Для заметок•Касса) 16:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- This DR may show that the source pic is also kind of... how to say it? Sometimes what looks de minimis may result in cases like this. --E4024 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The source has expired and is not preserved on Internet archive. Leoboudv (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: license review failed and COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Beatles in Nederland, de politie had moeite publiek in bedwang te houden, Bestanddeelnr 916-5117.jpg
[edit]
Source is missing. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: source info updated, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Koningin Juliana op het bordes van het stadhuis van Barendrecht, Bestanddeelnr 923-8946.jpg
[edit]
Source is missing. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: source info updated, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Landbouwtentoonstelling in de RAI aanstaande maandag open de nieuwste tractoren, Bestanddeelnr 915-9576.jpg
[edit]
Source is missing. Jcb (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: source info updated, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Found at https://hips.hearstapps.com/cit.h-cdn.co/assets/17/25/1497975402-download-1.jpg?crop=1xw:0.999609375xh;center,top&resize=*:2268, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Spam; The distorted image is looking like stolen from Google Earth or a service like that. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
La imagen no es trabajo propio, fue tomada de https://www.gettyimages.es/license/646877446 en donde no se concede licencia libre adecuada para commons Joanmrl (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Ronhjones at 00:01, 25 März 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: https://www.gettyimages.es/license/646877446 --Krdbot 06:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure, but maybe should be deleted per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Laos Raison2+ (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Built by USSR in the seventies. Sure nobody will search a copyright on it ;-) Chaoborus (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not sure but maybe should be deleted, per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Laos Raison2+ (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Maybe copyrighted Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 06:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Dubious own work, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Disney character, maybe not really CC license. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
EZMA | 2017 | KÕIK ÕIGUSED ON KAITSTUD, Copy of http://www.ezma.ee/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/elina_nechayeva_ezma_agency_2.jpg?x89315 Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
All photos credited to different people in the title. Some have EXIF data suggesting a strict copyright license. No evidence of permission. COM:OTRS required.
- File:Weinzentrum Dockner Fotocredit Robert Herbst.jpg
- File:Weinkellerei Dockner Fotocredit Bruno Klomfar.jpg
- File:Solartankstelle Tower of Power Fotocredit Bruno Klomfar.jpg
- File:Rat- und Fachärztehaus Herzogenburg Fotocredit Bruno Klomfar.jpg
- File:Forum Frohner Fotocredit Bruno Klomfar.jpg
- File:Landesgalerie für zeitgenössische Kunst Fotocredit Gerald Lechner.jpg
- File:Appartementhaus B3 Fotocredit Bruno Klomfar.jpg
Tokfo (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused panoramio photo with poor quality, no likely educational value AntonioK talk 07:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- In scope. Keep --Insider (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
meaningless without description Robot Monk (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Not an own work, appears in Google searches. E4024 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong picture Ollsyl (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Small files without EXIF data, user with bad history, unlikely to be own works.
- File:자유의 벽.jpg
- File:지방선거 당시 김현철.jpg
- File:곤양초등학교 모습.jpg
- File:곤양중학교 모습.jpg
- File:곤양고등학교 모습.jpg
- File:탁영문집.jpg
- File:김현철과 조성래.jpg
- File:김현철과 노무현.jpg
Yann (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete:
- File:자유의 벽.jpg: copyvio
- perhaps, copyvio:
- also...
- Thanks. --Garam talk 15:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Small file without EXIF data, last remaining file, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support for reasons stated, also noting that there is no assertion that the author of the image has granted their own permission for inclusion here. HalJor (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused small image; Category:Aluminium chloride has several better alternatives of this same perspective similar coloring DMacks (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Also: unclear copyright status. The stated source (and author) is a Twitter account (with no specific image identified) whose name matches the file name and the uploader's user name, but it's not clear that whoever created the photograph agreed to publication under the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
very small without EXIFs, unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This was uploaded to Flickr from a New York Public Library source. NYPL is inconclusive about the copyright status (click "More Details"), i. e. we don't know if this was actually published before 1923 or its copyright has otherwise expired. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Sorry it slipped through on Flickr2Commmons. Sorry to see it go but not over-distressed if it is going. Please let the process proceed. Who am I to doubt NYPL ;-)
Eddaido (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jcb. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by กรกต บัวงาม (talk · contribs)
[edit]I've spent around 15 minutes looking at this user's uploads. I've deleted a bunch of their uploads as copyvios found elsewhere earlier on the web. I can't spend more time right now on this user's uploads, but the rest are most likely also copyvios, with inexistent EXIF-data, or with EXIF pointing that the images are old, and not from this year when the user uploaded them. per COM:PRP these are most likely copyvios too.
- File:น้ำตาลกุมภวาปี.jpg
- File:โลตัสกุมภวาปี.jpg
- File:ถนนมิตรภาพกุมภวาปี.jpg
- File:วัดพระธาตุหนองหมัด.jpg
- File:ลำน้ำปาว.jpg
- File:อุทยานสะพานหินท่าลี่.jpg
- File:หนองปะโค.jpg
- File:วัดเกาะเกษ.jpg
- File:เกาะเกษ.jpg
- File:บัวแดง.png
- File:วัดโพธิ์ชัย พระพุทธบารมี.jpg
- File:พิพิธภัณฑ์หลวงปู่สา.jpg
- File:หลวงปู่หลอด ฐิตเปโม.jpg
- File:แผนที่ตำบลกุมภวาปี13.gif
- File:ถนนมิตรภาพม.2.jpg
- File:ถนน2023.jpg
- File:ถนนมิตรภาพ2.jpg
- File:วัดศรีนคราราม.jpg
- File:อาคาร40ปี.jpg
- File:สถานี.jpg
- File:แผนที่อำเภอ.gif
- File:แข่งเรือ.jpg
- File:พระธาตุดอน.jpg
- File:พระธาตุจินดา.jpg
- File:ภาพมุมสูงเมืองกุมภวาปี.jpg
- File:บ้านขาม.jpg
- File:โรงเรียนขามพิทย์.jpg
- File:ท้าวผาแดงนางไอ่.jpg
- File:รพ.กุม.jpg
- File:บขส.กุมภวาปี.jpg
- File:สถานีรถไฟ2.jpg
- File:กุม.jpg
- File:แข่งเรือเด้อ.gif
- File:แข่งเรือจ้า.jpg
- File:ทะเลบัวแดง.jpg
- File:ทะเลบัวอดง บ้านเดียม.png
- File:วัดธาตุหาญเทาว์.jpg
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unidentified person/person without Wikipedia article/Wikidata entry (that I could find at least). Out of educational scope. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Also, missing EXIF-data. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Redundant. (Superseded by File:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg.) Kulmalukko (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
©2018 Sinking Ship Entertainment. All Rights Reserved., similar to http://sinkingship.ca/assets/images/crew-jj.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(c) Karoline Sem, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
(c) Karoline Sem, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 22:40, 25 März 2018 UTC: Screenshot of non-free content: Commons:Deletion requests/File:YaraLins.jpg.png: unlikely to be own work --Krdbot 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the photos were taken by Mrs. Giovenco herself, like the other 8 photos published by me on Wikimedia before now. I have another camera! The permission was given by her, ask the administrators! Pugliesig
- Hi @Pugliesig: . How can I guess that ? Then you should add the ticket # you received from OTRS volunteers by adding the PermissionOTRS|id=number template. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permissions. Ruthven (msg) 08:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Gisella Giovenco (b. 1946), false date, any source nor permission Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. Ruthven (msg) 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Old picture I uploaded and never used Breakingspell (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. Very low quality image superseded by numerous better ones in its categories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Very poor image quality and uploader's previous history with a copyvio suggest this is likely a copyvio; should be deleted per COM:PRP IagoQnsi (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Sonia is life inspiration. So that I think her inspiration of life would be benefitted to other too. That's why I want to put her biography onto Wikipedia, then others who looking for some inspiration for their life, They can get something from Sonia, so I contacted her, She agreed to put her bio in Wikipedia, She gave me this photo and one previous. If you want I can email proofs of that.
Thanks talk 05:00, 15 March 2018 (GMT)
- @Designwall: Hi,
- We need a permission from the photographer for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not own work. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess we should delete this file (as an unused OoS personal image) and her cat, but keep File:Cumpleaños de Celestina Felices Hurtado (9).jpg because it is a nice picture of an old person celebrating her birthday. E4024 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized chart Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no context to give it any educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of Suntaži manor - panoramio.jpg JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A shot clicked by me that I no longer wish to share. I wish to reserve all rights to it. Swardeepak (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent unused upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unidentified person/person without Wikipedia article. Out of educational scope. Also, no evidence of being released under a free license by the author. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
While the photo is freely licensed, I'm not sure this photo covered by {{FoP-Switzerland}} because it looks like a rather temporary installation? Ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi ! I assume this picture responds correctly to the following statement, for the purposes of the law : “The works must be permanently installed, but for the purposes of the law, "permanent" means a fixed installation which may be temporary -- time limited -- but not "accidental", e.g. due to transport of the work.“ in {{FoP-Switzerland}} --Marc Wathieu (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Irrespective of the question of temporary installations (it is controversial what exactly "permanently situated" means), Swiss FoP doesn't apply to interior spaces ("Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces"), and this image clearly doesn't seem to be taken outdoors. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Modern art work, needs a license from the artist. --ghouston (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Kusama's work is not PD. — Racconish ☎ 21:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. 3D artwork of Yayoi Kusama (1929 -)'s. --whym (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Andrea 2.jpg
We have OTRS-permission, but I still think, that the photos are out of project scope. Small photos with bad quality, depicted Andra Krebs-Esters isn't mentioned neither in de.wiki nor in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per Taivo. There was an article about this artist in German-language Wikipedia, but it was speedily deleted in 2008 for "obvious" lack of notability ("Relevanz wird um Meilen verfehlt"). --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]This is a building in Iceland by w:Guðjón Samúelsson. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 022 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571012295).jpg
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 023 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571013497).jpg
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 024 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571014571).jpg
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 043 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571026853).jpg
- File:Reykjavik Hallgrimskirkja church (1413324848).jpg
- File:Reykjavik, Hallgrimskirkja (6796777031).jpg
- File:Reykjavik-Hallgrimskirkja 2032.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As per nomination. russavia (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment File:Reykjavik-Hallgrimskirkja 2032.jpg is not a building, as is it is stated in DR. The builing is there, of course, but it is not the object of the photo. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The entire building is copyrighted, both the interior and the exterior. I would assume that the pulpit is a part of the building. If not, it is probably copyrightable anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I won't argue about that. Just delete. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- The entire building is copyrighted, both the interior and the exterior. I would assume that the pulpit is a part of the building. If not, it is probably copyrightable anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- migrate to english wikipedia, "FoP-USonly|Iceland|2020" . Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
Guðjón Samúelsson died in 1950. Undelete in 2021.
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It seems a bit depressing to see a lack of definition of FoP in Iceland leading to these deletions of educational and good quality photographs of buildings (not just my uploads). Perhaps there are two things that could happen as a community?
- Could someone advise as to who holds the rights for Samúelsson's estate? Perhaps there is an existing Architecture company that does this, or an identifiable descendant?
- How can we lobby the Icelandic parliament, perhaps there has already been significant ground work here? An explanatory letter to Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, with these cases of the loss of high quality images that represent Iceland in the global public domain, just because Iceland has out of date law on FoP, ought to cause some concern for the damage this causes to Iceland's presence on the global stage.
- --Fæ (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Files are still copyrighted, no FOP in Iceland -FASTILY 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Iceland: the church is work by Guðjón Samúelsson (d. 1950).
File:Air Iceland Fokker 50, TF-JMR@RKV,07.07.2009-543af - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg(church is probably incidental – Taivo)- File:Hallgrimskirkja 2012.JPG
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 050 - view from the Perlan (6571034905).jpg (I opened photo with full size and the church is only building, which is well seen – Taivo)
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 052 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571036125).jpg (church is in file name and description, so it is difficult to argue, that this is de minimis – Taivo)
- File:Iceland -- 2008-08-02 16-45-16.jpg
- File:Reykjavik (8).jpg
- File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG
- File:Reykjavik Hil.jpg (church is here not incidental: there is exactly one opening in treerow and the church is exactly in this place – Taivo)
- File:Reykjavik, Iceland-13July2011.jpg (I opened photo with full size and the church is only building, which is well seen – Taivo)
- File:Skólavarðan.jpeg
- File:Vörðuskóli.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 08:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Refer to my comment from last time. --Fæ (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Air Iceland Fokker 50, TF-JMR@RKV,07.07.2009-543af - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg (the subject is the aircraft), File:Iceland - Reykjavik 050 - view from the Perlan (6571034905).jpg (this is a panoramic view of Reykjavik), File:Iceland - Reykjavik 052 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571036125).jpg (another panoramic), File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG (another panoramic), File:Reykjavik Hil.jpg (another panoramic), File:Reykjavik, Iceland-13July2011.jpg (another panoramic). Delete the rest. russavia (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Judged by the description, the usage and the composition of these images, the church is not de minimis. It is not included "entirely accidentally and incidentally", it does "form an essential part of the composition", and it is not "shown with insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity". It is evident even to a fleeting observer and could not be replaced at will with another work. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the panoramas of the city. The church is somewhat incidental in the scene. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let's review it one by one:
- File:Air Iceland Fokker 50, TF-JMR@RKV,07.07.2009-543af - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg - not incidental, gives the context to the image.
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 050 - view from the Perlan (6571034905).jpg - the church is mentioned among the keywords in Flickr, it is mentioned in the description, the image has been categorised in relation to it.
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 052 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571036125).jpg - the church is mentioned in the title of the image, the description states "Hallgrimskirkja cathedral shines in the autumn light", the only category refers to the church.
- File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG - the description states: "You can easily see the Hallgrimskirkja church ... dominating the Reykjavík skyline with old town Reykjavík surrounding the church." With other words, the dominating (key) element is the church, and the old town is only of secondary importance and gives the context. The image has been extensively used to illustrate articles about the church.
- File:Reykjavik Hil.jpg - the description: "Reykjavík, Hallgrímskirkja" (i.e. Reykjavik, specifically Hallgrímskirkja). The image has been used to illustrate articles about the church and categorised in relation to the church.
- File:Reykjavik, Iceland-13July2011.jpg - the description: "View from the top of Perlan showing the spire of Hallgrímskirkja." The description itself is clear enough: the photo shows the church. Also in Flickr: "The spire style building which grabs attention in the picture is "Hallgrimskirkja".".
- --Eleassar (t/p) 10:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let's review it one by one:
Keep per Russavia. Responding to Eleassar's most far-fetched justifications:
- File:Air Iceland Fokker 50, TF-JMR@RKV,07.07.2009-543af - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg - "[Hallgrimskirkja] gives the context to the image" - what context exactly? The picture would be just as valuable for illustrating the airframe without the church
- The church is a very recognisable building in Reykjavik. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- So what does the location has to do with the airline, the plane type or that specific airframe? Air Iceland flies to 13 destinations and the picture would be equally useful in any of those airports.--Strainu (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, but evidently the intent was to photograph the plane with a recognisable building behind it, designating the location (like the Eiffel Tower would in Paris). Perhaps because it's Air Iceland, which has its head office in Reykjavik. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- The church is a very recognisable building in Reykjavik. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 050 - view from the Perlan (6571034905).jpg - Flickr members currently add many keywords, some only tangential to the picture; The categorization was made after the upload, by a different user and can be reversed. Commons:De minimis is all about how the image is used, not necessarily about how it can be used. That's why {{De minimis}} warns against cropping the image etc.--Strainu (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Different interpretations are possible, but if the original Flickr uploader and the person who added the category agree that the church is a key element, this makes it clear enough. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Icelandic law allows photos of buildings if the building isn't the main subject of the image. This seems less restrictive than standard de minimis. Compare with this Danish text about Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). The "main subject" idea also appears in Danish, Finnish and Norwegian law with regard to artworks such as statues.
- Delete:
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 2012.JPG
- File:Vörðuskóli.jpg - the main subject is the school (is:Vörðuskóli), while the church is de minimis. Delete because of the school, not because of the church. Undelete in 2020 (both the church and the school were made by the same architect).
- File:Skólavarðan.jpeg - the file name suggests that the main subject is is:Skólavarðan (Reykjavík), but the church looks very prominent on the picture and the picture shows unnecessarily much of the church if the other construction is supposed to be the main subject
- Keep:
- File:Air Iceland Fokker 50, TF-JMR@RKV,07.07.2009-543af - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg - the main subject is the plane
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 050 - view from the Perlan (6571034905).jpg - no building is the main subject
- File:Iceland - Reykjavik 052 - Hallgrimskirkja cathedral (6571036125).jpg - no building is the main subject
- File:Reykjavik Hil.jpg - no building is the main subject
- File:Reykjavik, Iceland-13July2011.jpg - no building is the main subject
Neutral:
- File:Iceland -- 2008-08-02 16-45-16.jpg - one could maybe claim that the main subject is the stuff covering the church instead of the church itself
- File:Reykjavik (8).jpg - multiple buildings, unclear if the church can be claimed to be the main subject.
- File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG - not sure if the building counts as the "main subject" or not. In the Danish court case mentioned above, the mermaid statue didn't appear at a prominent location ("en fremtrædende plads") in the collage, but in this case, the church seems to be at a prominent location. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Per Article 16 that you have mentioned at my talk page, it is true that a work must be the main subject for an image to not be de minimis. However, I wonder what is the main subject of the following images if not the church:
- The church is mentioned among the keywords in Flickr, it is mentioned in the description, the image has been categorised in relation to it.
- The church is mentioned in the title of the image, the description states "Hallgrimskirkja cathedral shines in the autumn light", the only category refers to the church.
- The description reads: "Reykjavík, Hallgrímskirkja" (i.e. Reykjavik, specifically Hallgrímskirkja). The image has been used to illustrate articles about the church and categorised in relation to the church.
- The description reads: "View from the top of Perlan showing the spire of Hallgrímskirkja." The description itself is clear enough: the photo shows the church. Also in Flickr: "The spire style building which grabs attention in the picture is "Hallgrimskirkja".".
- For the rest, my comment is the following:
- File:Iceland -- 2008-08-02 16-45-16.jpg - seems comparable to [4]: a silhouette of a man is a portrait, therefore a silhouette of a church is a picture of the church. The intent was to show exactly this church, not just some church, during restauration.
- File:Reykjavik (8).jpg - in contrast to the church, which takes place over half of the image, the rest of buildings are hardly discernable.
- File:Reykjavik Aðflug Braut 19.JPG - the description states "the Hallgrimskirkja church dominating the Reykjavík skyline with old town Reykjavík surrounding the church"; with other words, the church is the principal object, and the rest is accessory.
- --Eleassar (t/p) 07:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Per Article 16 that you have mentioned at my talk page, it is true that a work must be the main subject for an image to not be de minimis. However, I wonder what is the main subject of the following images if not the church:
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Postcard_of_Ljubljana,_Pre%C5%A1eren_Square_at_night_%284%29.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, but one kept. Hallgrímskirkja is simply too big building for Reykjavik and spoils most photos, even some panoramas. Taivo (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]These pictures show a non-free architectural work by w:Guðjón Samúelsson and/or a non-free sculpture by w:Alexander Stirling Calder.
- File:109-0939 IMG (479675694).jpg
- File:109-0943 IMG (482642929).jpg
- File:2 talking (477365563).jpg
- File:An high look and a proud heart (2514256203).jpg
- File:Fast movement (603380846).jpg
- File:From another view (484183785).jpg
- File:Get me to the church on time (7091019531).jpg
- File:Halgrimskirka (13940299208).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja (interno).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja-Reykjavík.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja and Leifur Eiríksson statue.JPG
- File:Hallgrímskirkja Reykjavík 2011.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja Side.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja, Reykjavik (6969741142).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja, Reykjavik (7115823577).jpg
- File:High time (2514265157).jpg
- File:Higher (1251292238).jpg
- File:Higher (741150725).jpg
- File:Inside Hallgrímskirkja HDR.jpg
- File:Kirkjujól 2008 (3150666873).jpg
- File:Last Christmas (3160371678).jpg
- File:Leif Ericson (5809725470).jpg
- File:Leif Eriksson and Hallgrimskirkja closeup.JPG
- File:Leif Eriksson and Hallgrimskirkja.JPG
- File:Leifur Ericsson (4047301286).jpg
- File:Let There Be Peace on Earth (3151940908).jpg
- File:Specific stage (508084041).jpg
- File:Stand tall (2515086168).jpg
- File:Viewpoint (500998529).jpg
- File:Á ferð með Leifi heppna (603380862).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- WTF?!?! —[ˈjøːˌmaˑ] 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at Category:Hallgrímskirkja, you will find a simple instruction at the top of the page: "Attention: Upload only photographs taken of buildings whose architect died before 1944." You didn't follow this instruction when you uploaded a photograph of a building whose architect died in 1950. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and would make wp:commons useless. —[ˈjøːˌmaˑ] 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's the way things work in many countries. See File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg: you can only upload pictures of recent buildings from green, blue and yellow countries, but not from red countries. If the country is green or blue, then you may additionally upload pictures of recent statues. If the country is red, then express permission is needed from the architect (or the architect's heir if the architect is dead) unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. You may find this interesting to read. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Going a bit into detail: Iceland does in fact have a form of freedom of panorama, but for non-commercial use only, which isn't suitable for Commons - see here. There is also a new version of the FOP map which is more detailed: File:Levels of Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg (the brown and light-green countries in this map have "non-commercial FOP", the red ones have no FOP at all). For Commons purposes, there is no practical difference between "no FOP" and "non-commercial FOP only" , but it might be interesting. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's the way things work in many countries. See File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg: you can only upload pictures of recent buildings from green, blue and yellow countries, but not from red countries. If the country is green or blue, then you may additionally upload pictures of recent statues. If the country is red, then express permission is needed from the architect (or the architect's heir if the architect is dead) unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. You may find this interesting to read. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and would make wp:commons useless. —[ˈjøːˌmaˑ] 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at Category:Hallgrímskirkja, you will find a simple instruction at the top of the page: "Attention: Upload only photographs taken of buildings whose architect died before 1944." You didn't follow this instruction when you uploaded a photograph of a building whose architect died in 1950. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. russavia (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, copyrighted architecture. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]The architect died in 1950 and there is no freedom of panorama in Iceland, so this work is still subject to copyright restrictions.
- File:Art&Culture (482734555).jpg
- File:Cathedral - panoramio (10).jpg
- File:Cathedral, Reykjavik - panoramio.jpg
- File:Church of Hallgrímur - Reykjavík - Iceland - HDR - panoramio.jpg
- File:Crow on Hallgrimskirkja church (440948233).jpg
- File:Half mast (1605520380).jpg
- File:Hallgrimms Kirche (Hallgrímskirkja) in Reykjavik, Island, 20 Jh.jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja (3403631894).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja (3313620340).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja and Leifur heppni - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja in Black and White.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja Reykjavík.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja Tjörnin.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja, Reykjavik (6969740496).jpg
- File:Iceland Images for April 2016 03.JPG
- File:Iceland Reykjavík Hallgrímskirkja coverd 2008.JPG
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Reykjavik,_Island,_20_Jh.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Do not delete, the achitecture of the building ist covered due to maintenance. Did you see the picture? So no need to delete. --Bernello (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't look closely, and I'm no expert on these things. If that's sufficient to keep the image, by all means do. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Do not delete, this pic ist just a common streetview. --Bernello (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's a common street view which centres the church, includes the church in the title of the image, and was placed in the churche's category. I find it hard to accept that as de minimis. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand that somebody has to clean up here on Commons, and to tell the rules, especially the rules and laws of specific states. So we have the year 2017, an the copyright of the architect is ending in 2020. Why are you on hurry? -- Ok, Joke, but I think, that here on Commons are many other rediculous pictueres to delete. Greetings -- Bernello (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not to worry, Bernello, they can all be set to be undeleted on 1 January 2021. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, You are right, you won. There are existing rules and laws, which we may are only patially agree, but we have to follow them all. Have a good time... Greetings --Bernello (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not to worry, Bernello, they can all be set to be undeleted on 1 January 2021. - Themightyquill (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand that somebody has to clean up here on Commons, and to tell the rules, especially the rules and laws of specific states. So we have the year 2017, an the copyright of the architect is ending in 2020. Why are you on hurry? -- Ok, Joke, but I think, that here on Commons are many other rediculous pictueres to delete. Greetings -- Bernello (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's a common street view which centres the church, includes the church in the title of the image, and was placed in the churche's category. I find it hard to accept that as de minimis. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep @Themightyquill and Bernello: I have renamed the file and description and also cropped it to enable that we keep it according to de minimis. Poco2 10:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- File:IS - Reykjavik - Black And White - Cross - Construction - Höfuðborgarsvæðið - Hallgrímskirkja (4889886065).jpg
- File:IS - Reykjavik - Höfuðborgarsvæðið - Hallgrímskirkja - Clock - Road Trip (4889889197).jpg
- File:Look up! (484183787).jpg
- File:Many parts (2444181248).jpg
- File:Night in Reykjavík (1854216277).jpg
- File:Real life (740612440).jpg
- File:Reykjavik - panoramio (11).jpg
- File:Reykjavik - panoramio (12).jpg
- File:Reykjavik.jpg
- File:ReykjavikNewYr.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I would not call this a copyright violation because it is a blurry/artsy image, and in no way capable of producing an accurate copy or facsimile of the church's appearance. 208.100.156.100 21:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- File:Right church (540318282).jpg
- File:Street view, Reykjavík 2014-07-28-2.jpg
- File:Top part (740612496).jpg
- File:Við Hallgrímskirkju (488802962).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Themightyquill (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. kept two de minimis and two of the clock -- utilitarian. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]The architect died in 1950 and there is no freedom of panorama in Iceland --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC).
- File:201708 Hallgrímskirkja b35.jpg
- File:201708 Reykjavík Hallgrímskirkja 03.jpg
- File:201708 Reykjavík Hallgrímskirkja 01.jpg
- File:Miðborg, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (8).jpg
- File:Miðborg, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Miðborg, Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Miðborg, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Miðborg, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (17).jpg
- File:Miðborg, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland - panoramio (20).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 8 (24848207913).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 7 (25326836501).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 4 (25413061095).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 5 (24786397093).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 2 (25386876116).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 1 (24786522963).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Church Hallgrímskirkja - 2013.08 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Reykjavik Cathedral.jpg
- File:Leifur Eiríksson and Hallgrímskirkja (14527191932).jpg
- and probably some more
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete At least one of these was already deleted above, and the exact same image was reuploaded a month later. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]The architect died in 1950 and there is no freedom of panorama in Iceland --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC).
- File:201708 Hallgrímskirkja b33.jpg
- File:201708 Reykjavík Hallgrímskirkja 02.jpg
- File:201708 Hallgrímskirkja b37.jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja church.jpg
- File:Iceland December 2014 (15816334860).jpg
- File:Calle Skólavörðustígur, Reikiavik, Distrito de la Capital, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 111.jpg
- Keep Per de minimis The main subject here is the street Poco2 21:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Hallgrimskirkja 6 (25294821892).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja up close and personal. - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja, Reykjavík, Iceland (Unsplash).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja - panoramio.jpg
- File:Iceland December 2014 (15383968363).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; including File:Calle Skólavörðustígur, Reikiavik, Distrito de la Capital, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 111.jpg because the church is very prominent in this image (not de minimis - it would be a completely different photo without Hallgrímskirkja). At least we don't have to wait that long for undeletion now; all images depicting buildings by Guðjón Samúelsson can be restored in 2021 :-). --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hallgrímskirkja
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Iceland
- File:Hallgrimskirkja (3369079913).jpg
- File:Hallgrimskirkja from Perlan, Reykjavík - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja (3313620340).jpg
- File:Hallgrímskirkja20140131.jpg
- File:Kościół Hallgrímskirkja.jpg
- File:Modern Reykjavik Church - panoramio - TumbleCow.jpg
- File:Reykjavik - panoramio (21).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Vera (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not an own work, probably grabbed from: http://www.mirmalas.com/news/2198/%D8%AD%D8%AC%D8%AA%E2%80%8C%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%BE%D8%B4%D8%AA/. E4024 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not an own work, published before upload: http://kashkan.ir/news/42674/%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%85-%D8%AF%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3/. E4024 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Dubious own work from a user who, I understand, has added at least two other files which were not their own work. E4024 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from the photographer, nor of who that was. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- The same or similar considerations seem to apply to:
- File:Louise and Neith Nevelson, c.1965.gif, claimed as not previously published but with artefacts suggesting that it was scanned from a printed source, and
- File:Louise and Neith Nevelson.jpg, derived from the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: author is specified. Transferred from enwiki. Ruthven (msg) 16:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
从来源处无法得知该照片拍摄于1948年1月3日。无法判断是否拍摄于50年前 shizhao (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Nonfree 3D art; no FOP in United States Bri (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
画像の回転未処理で投稿しましたので削除して下さい 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - No valid reason. User is talking about rotation. This picture is just taken a second before or after File:Tokyo Station Hotel-1a.jpg - I don't understand the reason, although I translated it. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Richardkiwi. Ruthven (msg) 16:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Found here: http://www.goebl-architektur.at/project/viktor-frankl-park-3/ (direct link). EXIF and title of the Commons file suggest that no permission exists. Tokfo (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. OTRS authorisation needed from the author Bruno Klomfar. Ruthven (msg) 16:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Requires OTRS. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full of Blasphemous Names only WIKIPEDIA is the $atanic Advocate for Pornographic $tars! WELCOME BONES 666 ART WORLD WICKEDPEDIA.jpg. E4024 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hartmut Ellrich
[edit]This is a new editor who has made modest, but real contributions. However, these are all unused personal images. None of them are obviously selfies and most do not have EXIF, so they probably are not "own work" as claimed.
- File:Hartmut Ellrich 2011.png
- File:Hartmut Ellrich 2013.jpg
- File:Hartmut Ellrich 2014.jpg
- File:Hartmut Ellrich 2015.jpg
- File:Hartmut Ellrich 2016.jpg
- File:Hartmut Ellrich.jpg
- File:Historiker Hartmut Ellrich.jpg
- File:Porträtfoto Hartmut Ellrich.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Im Zweifelsfall bitte löschen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberlehrer70 (talk • contribs)
Comment Hi Jim, apparently this a case of a good-faith mistake on the part of a novice editor who is still on the learning curve. I believe that this editor has a potential due to his professional background and that Commons would benefit from retaining him. That is why I left him a message asking to arrange obtaining permissions for photos that he had uploaded. Two of them are in use,
And one more might be of interest to the project to illustrate that German cultural historians "got no horns and got no tails",
I agree that the remaining ones are of little interest, and the uploader should not even bother obtaining permissions for them and they can simply go. And the message to Oberlehrer70 would be that deletions, however unpleasant, are actually beneficial as they both help to maintain the scope of the project and advance users' experiences. Regards, --Taterian (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Files can be restored after OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not a selfie, so if the uploader is indeed the person depicted, this is a copyvio. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
According to the signature in the lower left corner, this is a 1975 painting and therefore will be under copyright for at least 27 years and probably many more. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Yann (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Garam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not self work; it came from Academy of Korean Studies |source=http://www.aks.ac.kr/ PD-old? Yann (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Yann: Maybe, this image came from #1, so I think this image is not his/her own work. But I don't know whether this image is PD or not. Perhaps, if MCST have ownership of this image, this image is KOGL license. Well, in this case, this license seem to have some problem as of now. Thanks. --Garam talk 14:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Own work? The lady was born a century ago... E4024 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
![20:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/03/14#c-The_Anome-2018-03-14T20:10:00.000Z-File:"Hot_Stuff".png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
![16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/03/14#c-Ruthven-2018-04-11T16:52:00.000Z-File:"Hot_Stuff".png){kind=link}
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope — Racconish ☎ 20:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's useful! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 16:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the software is under GPL. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot taken from a TV news program, so "own work" is incorrect and the licensing would be invalid. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, false date : found as early as 2010 at https://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2010-01/183796/2023869_640px.jpg?1263873939 Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, © 1997 Пројекат Растко и појединачни носиоци ауторских права, осим ако није другачије назначено. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Beggining of the page declares: "Biographies and photos of the authors (unless otherwise noted) are licensed under Creative Commons: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported • Artworks images are allowed for academic and fair use." ... This is clear CC case IMHO, but I'll contact them right now, in order to explicitly express license for this particular case. Would it be enough to cancel deletion request? --Stripar (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- They have changed license formulation: "Texts and photos on this page are licensed under Creative Commons: Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Unported". Is it clear(ed) for Wiki use now? --Stripar (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: It's fine now. Ruthven (msg) 17:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy Ronhjones (Talk) 22:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 17:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
As stated, not "own work" but produced by a "prison inmate", hence copyvio. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:39, 14 April 2018 UTC: No OTRS permission for 30 days --Krdbot 06:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Unclear status. The same user has uploaded a copyrighted picture (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyril Hanouna en 2017.jpg) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Photo Jean-François Lange, autorisation de l'auteur nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The file has two problems. At first, it is cropped from file:RaceMugshots.jpg, deleted as copyright violation. No exact source, license was never reviewed. Copyvio is possible. At second, once the file could be important, but now the file is small, unused and has quite a bad quality. Out of project scope. All depicted persons are unidentified criminals. Taivo (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://www.facebook.com/92919244871/photos/a.10152061899744872.1073742490.92919244871/10156033071399872/?type=3&theater, out of COM:SCOPE. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Found at https://ephemerajpp.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/03-06-13-13.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AndrewCassara (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://sgmgroupartists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Andrew-Crew-No-Zits-copy.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 23:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AndrewCassara (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution and missing metadata. Based on the uploader's user name and the file descriptions, the uploader appears to be the subject rather than the author of the photos.
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by me as copyvio and the rationale was: movie scene, obviously copyrighted." Please send a confirmation by email. See your talk page for details. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: ticket:2018031710005639. --Didym (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FashionFlash14612 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logo image, without Wikipedia article (that I can find). Out of educational scope.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader other images uploaded have been copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The file was previously published on http://www.rehart-power.de/referenzen/fischaufstiegsschnecke-typ-fas/heckerwehr-fas.html The is no hint of a CC-4.0 license on that page. Maybe User:RehartGroup really represents the company, maybe not. I suggested OTRS but there was so action. Jahobr (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
On hold Apparently the OTRS is currently ongoing. I do not know how long it will take. Let's wait a while.--Jahobr (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: ticket:2018030210002973. --Didym (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
video thumbnail SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a coin from Thailand. Unsure if this is PD or copyrighted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
eu carreguei eu quero que exclui Johnathan Fersa (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
DSS (and DSS II) are copyright: https://archive.stsci.edu/dss/copyright.html Lithopsian (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. If this is in Austria, then it may be OK. If it is in Germany, then it is not as indoor works there are not covered by FoP. In any case it is useless among our 40+ million images without a full description and categories. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- The church in question would appear to be in Thüringen, judging from file usage, so it's in Germany. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zar chi oo (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely user's own works, low resolution and file size, possibly grabbed from Facebook per FBMD meta data.
Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 15:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Ninjastrikers This is my work and I took this photo with mobile phone and uploaded on Facebook. I saved these photos on drive and grabbed it to add here. --Zar chi oo (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Zar chi oo: , if you are author of these photos, please upload the original photo which contain meta data. Some of the uploaders save the photos from Facebook and upload here, claiming as their own works. That's why I nominated your photos for deletion. Please see Commons:Licensing for more information. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 14:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per above, or send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The "complex" has a B–O bond, not two separate molecules. See File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svg DMacks (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- What kind of bond between B and O in this case? --Pion (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svg is any more accurate than the nominated image. As far as I can tell, the standard way of depicting the boron trifluoride diethyl etherate complex is with a positive charge on the oxygen atom, a negative charge on the boron atom, and no charge on the fluorine atoms. I have created File:Boron trifluoride-diethyl etherate.svg. Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yikes! Yes, that alt I proposed is definite nonsense. I saw "all covalent and B has a charge" and not at the rest of the details:( Ed's is correct. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I think both File:Boron trifluoride ether complex.svg and
File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svgare incorrect and should be deleted, to be replaced by File:Boron trifluoride-diethyl etherate.svg. Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Edit: Striking File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svg, which has now been corrected and is currently in use. Ed (Edgar181) 19:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)- Both the nominated file and also File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svg are now unused in any COM:EDUSE way. The latter is present in a talkpage discussion for an article about this chemical where it had been used, noting that it is incorrect. DMacks (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (File:Boron trifluoride diethyl etherate.svg is used). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
© Council of Europe, any permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
© Council of Europe, any permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Tagged almost 4 years ago for "Each seems to have at least 4 glycosidic links, most of which look the same compared among the images. The titles appear to intend to highlight the differences in one part of them, but not specifically marked which. Especially confusing because third has two different title-terms for two different parts of same image, and also there are untitled parts that would use same terminology." The image quality (size/resolution) is so poor that some atoms are almost overlapped, which is COM:EDUSE confusing if the whole goal is to illustrate different modes of bonding. If someone wanted it, would be easy enough to redraw these to MOS. Category:Beta-glucans has lot of nice speciic examples if all someone wants is a representative one. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely that image is free content, since it appears to be a screenshot of a video game: Second Life, from the description on the file's information page. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy , which seems to prohibit this sort of reuse in many (most?) situations: no evidence is provided that this image is an exception to this. Also no indication that content is notable. The Anome (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support also noting that there is no assertion that the author of the image has granted their own permission for inclusion here. HalJor (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This image may have problems, but unfortunately The_Anome seems to be laboring under several misconceptions, and has done a rather poor job of pointing out such problems (if they exist). First, Second Life is not a "video game" in any ordinary or conventional sense, and the use of the words "video game" brings to mind a situation (i.e. content authored by artists hired by a video game software company) which in fact does not always apply to Second Life.
HalJor -- the "author" is the Linden Labs Second Life rendering engine. If the engine is rendering basic 3D structures which were generated by Linden Labs itself, then there's a copyright problem. However, if the engine is rendering USER-GENERATED 3D structures, then there may not be any copyright problem, as documented at Template:Second_Life.
Finally, The_Anome -- there is absolutely no requirement that individual Wikimedia Commons images should be "notable". You must be confusing Wikimedia Commons with another site. (There's also not really a ban on Original Research at Wikimedia Commons...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no more copyright issues than the rest of the images in the same category. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The KeyWiki attribution is likely bogus due to the following reasons:
- The author is set as "KiWi", who is basically the only guy on KeyWiki.
- The image is found alternatively on http://www.organizing20.occupyreturns.com/about-us/ as well as other of Maria Svart's organization profile pages.
--Artoria2e5 contribs 01:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Likely bogus" doesn't cut it. The fact that Kiwi (not KiWi) is basically the only guy on KeyWiki is neither here nor there. Whether it within his ambit to slap a GFDL license on material scarfed up from Facebook is a legitimate issue, however. I am not Sherlock Holmes and I assume good faith. Kencf0618 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Depending on your definiton of good faith, the answer is probably mixed. KeyWiki is created for showing "tip-offs from ex-socialists as well as those still working inside the system" and "exposing the covert side of politics", so the "good" faith is certainly not for its subjects; for Svart's page in particular, they are apparently happy to spend time on looking at what Facebook events Svart set to "interested". (The same check is repeated for a good bunch of other persons linked on http://keywiki.org/File:Trumpolicious.PNG.) On the other hand they certainly are happy to give every article a picture.
- Did I just mention a Facebook screenshot? Yeah, despite it being -- obviously -- a case of non-free fair usage, no notices were posted on KeyWiki, and like in the case of Svart's avatar, GFDL can be assumed from the page footer. KeyWiki does not provide explicit let alone reliable information for image licensing, so you probably shouldn't use them seriously either. --Artoria2e5 contribs 23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is something of a sticky wicket. I learned of KeyWiki by happenstance, and furthermore I have contacted the DSA (of which I am a member -full disclosure) about the licensing issues involved, so que sera, sera within the ambit of Wikipedia. Kencf0618 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, per nomination. Taivo (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I am the subject of this image. The political nature of this photo is embarrassing. It is no longer used in Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. Alexthepuffin (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept, no acceptable reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It is unclear why this should be hosted on Wikimedia Commons with no date and no matches found through image searches. There may be a date written on the card, but they are hard to decipher, possibly indicating 1903. The photograph in the foreground has an apparent photographer name on the bottom right, but again too small to interpret. Fæ (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Why should it not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Because the template being used presumes a published date of before 1898, and the photograph is named, we just fail to read and analyse the name to check a potential death date. Consequently we cannot say this was published without a named photographer, nor can we say it is out of copyright based on death date + 70 years, nor can we say there never was a claim of copyright. Given these scenarios, there is no obvious PD template to apply, so it fails the precautionary principle --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The restaurant on Piz Languard was destroyed before 1900 and thus the photograph was also taken before. The picture is invaluable for Wikimedia Commons. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the dates? The Wikipedia articles say nothing about it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + no enough information to keep it. Ruthven (msg) 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
_badge.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_badge.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by LittleWink as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.venomi.nl/events/sail-marine/marineoud/marineoud.htm
No speedy delete, see file discussion page. Wdwd (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
_badge.jpg){kind=link}
I believe this image should not be deleted since its from the Dutch Institute of Military History (https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/), which is part of the Ministry of Defence. Pictures from the Dutch Ministry of Defence are allowed, if properly annotated/origin is stated. See > https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Gebruik_van_openbare_bronnen#Overheden and https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_help:Gebruik_van_openbare_bronnen#www.mindef.nl Dragnadh. These pages state that Dutch ministry has given consent to using its images if properly sourced/annotated, which I did. Dragnadh (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
_badge.jpg){kind=link}
- Hmm. Source link does not link to the file source, the correct link is: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl/memorix/8cb48094-4587-b8fb-293a-3c90041a7c21. But these is no evidence that this file is published under a free license. According to the F.A.Q. ([5]) only files which list CC-BY 4.0 as copyright are under that license (example). LittleWink (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and LittleWink. --Storkk (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
_badge.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by ManFromNord as no source (No source since) Fæ (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Keep --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: just about 120 years old; we can presume PD-old. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
If the date is correct at 1899, then PD-old-assumed should not be used. If the name on the print is a studio name rather than the name of the photographer, then a PD-unknown template may be usable. However I have been unable to decipher the names on the right hand side to analyse further. Copyright in the source country, may be 80 years after date of death. Voted keep before, mainly because there was a source, so the no source template was misused. However this remains a marginal case and either we apply the 'assumed' template as stated, or it seems meaningless. Undelete in 2021. --Fæ (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- The author appears to be "Letzler S. és Társa, Kassa" (ie. S. Letzler and Partner of Košice). I can't find any date of death for S. Letzler though. Potential source - Themightyquill (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We decided on a cutoff, we should probably stick to that cutoff. --Storkk (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The author is Central Office of the Communist Party of China, which is not a state organ of the PRC. Njzjz (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: TOO as the communistic logo is used everywhere.--Sanandros (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC). --Sanandros (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
