Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(28120006130).jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Karim185.3 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted logo. Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment this file is for a Saudi government agency. is it not a fair use content? --Karim talk to me :)..! 09:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, sorry, this was a misclick by me. --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Jhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbvvvvvv 2607:FB91:1990:28B2:AC39:60F7:8215:2F3 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination ;). --Achim55 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Brief biography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --Wdwd (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:NOTSOCIAL: non-contributor personal profile page with no content that pertains to Commons. Uhai (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD U3. --Wdwd (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Own work? 191.126.14.25 23:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for for artwork, including sculptures Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: recent transfer, quickly deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for artwork, including sculptures Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: recent transfer, quickly deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
See short title. Own work? 181.43.5.243 12:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Herbythyme. --Rosenzweig τ 11:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The name of the photographer (Corinne Dubreuil) is right there in the description. They produced this photo for use by the ATP Tour. Reverse image search also reveals further usage by the ATP's social media team. Tunestoons (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
._1880%27s.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._1880%27s.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{Duplicate|File:Ingush dance in Gveleti (Gelate). 19th century.jpg}} (Template doesn't work, anyway, it's File:Ingush dance in Gveleti (Gelate). 19th century.jpg ) Enyavar (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
._19th_century.jpg){kind=link}
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate Muqale (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
- Not sure of the licensing of the other file, although PD-old should apply with it being from 1880 Enyavar (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've uploaded it twice. The website on mentioned on this one (top-left corner) is not the original source, hence the request for deletion. Muqale (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
Cambie el cielo Nico277272 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sarso ka khet? 191.126.48.55 00:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Kadı. --Rosenzweig τ 11:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Used for self promo Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Wrong name. Mihai Andrei (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If you mean the filename, that can be changed and is not a good reason for deletion. What should the name be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Nevermind: it's a redirect, and your deletion nomination tag seems to have messed it up. Why shouldn't it be reverted to what it was before your deletion request? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redirected on day of upload per bad name. --Achim55 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Low-res duplicate of File:Basketball hitting a basketball goal.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Abused for linkspam. --Achim55 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photo published on Twitter in 2017 according to TinEye https://tineye.com/search/299a5af036e72232f14c349218f0683723089253?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The author in the watermark is different from the uploader's CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio. Compare with the uploads of the similarly named JasperYoung007; name ends in 007, pictures of Michael Young's works, all uploaded elsewhere long before WP. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Uploader claims that there is a CC license label on YouTube, but I don't see one at this time. Absent evidence of a valid license, this needs to be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Standard yt license. --Achim55 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Achim55. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. (Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~ Moheen (keep talking) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a personal essay that appears to be for a Spanish-language high school class; it's out-of-COM:SCOPE and should be deleted as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax flag. As such, this is out-of-scope for lacking educational value. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Nominating per COM:PRP. This appears to be a derivative work created using ToonApp (compare this image, which gives the same style and the same background pattern). This app creates images that are close derivative works of photographs of yourself (or of some person) who are uploaded into the app; as such, these are goverened by COM:DW. Because of this, we need evidence of a valid free license for the file that was turned into cartoon form, but we currently lack that evidence.that the underlying photo of which this digitized image is a derivative work is itself free. For that reason, this should be precautionarily deleted as a derivative work of a presumptively non-free photograph. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality photograph. Uploader has previously taken images from elsewhere on the internet and presented them as own work, and I suspect that this is a screenshot of an online video. Per COM:PRP, I believe that this file should be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The website's terms appear to not grant the claimed license, and no free license is available at source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Small photo without metadata and the uploader has problems with copyright, I suspect copyright violation as well. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused art of non-notable artist (it:Bruno Di Pietro is 4 times deleted). Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Per FBMD... in beginning of special instructions field of metadata, the photo is previously published in Facebook. All previously published files must have evidence of free license, for example VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in France. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Article stub as PDF, out of Commons' scope. Achim55 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:NOTUSED. Seems to be advertising slides by non-contributor.
- File:Slide96.jpg
- File:Slide95.jpg
- File:Slide91.jpg
- File:Slide89.jpg
- File:Slide90.jpg
- File:Slide88.jpg
- File:Slide87.jpg
- File:Slide86.jpg
- File:Slide85.jpg
- File:Slide84.jpg
- File:Slide83.jpg
- File:Slide82.jpg
- File:Slide81.jpg
- File:Slide71.jpg
- File:Slide69.jpg
- File:Slide67.jpg
- File:Slide68.jpg
- File:Slide66.jpg
- File:Slide62.jpg
- File:Slide 61.jpg
- File:Slide60.jpg
- File:Slide59.jpg
- File:Slide58.jpg
- File:Slide53.jpg
- File:Slide52.jpg
- File:Slide50.jpg
- File:Slide49.jpg
- File:Slide48.jpg
- File:Slide47.jpg
- File:Slide46.jpg
- File:Slide45.jpg
- File:Slide 42.jpg
- File:Slide44.jpg
- File:Slide40.jpg
- File:Slide28.jpg
- File:Slide39.jpg
- File:Slide37.jpg
- File:Slide25.jpg
- File:Slide 21 Shri Ram.jpg
- File:Slide 22 Sri.jpg
- File:Slide19.jpg
- File:Slide14 Gauri Shankar Kashi.jpg
- File:Slide15.jpg
- File:Slide13 Kumbh Haridwar.jpg
- File:Slide10.jpg
- File:Slide9 SPIRITUAL PROJECTS.jpg
- File:Slide8 KEY CLIENTS.jpg
- File:ISPL Certifications.jpg
- File:Slide7 PRESENCE.jpg
Netora (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Tulsi 24x7 05:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Uploader apparently wants to delete this file (they had blanked the file information page). It's unused. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a compilation of logos, many of which are individually copyrighted. None are COM:DM, since the point of this image is to use those logos to indicate that the various member groups are a part of this coalition, so this should be deleted as lacking valid evidence of a free license for the various underlying complex logos. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Image metadata indicates that the photo is all rights reserved, and this photo has previously been published online with this same metadata. As such, we lack sufficient evidence of a free license from the copyright holder and this should be deleted in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This photo, on its face, appears to be a photograph of a television screen or other monitor. The pixel lines are visible. As such, we lack evidence of a free license from the copyright holder who produced the image that was displayed on the screen, and this should be deleted per COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Video with copyright. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 19:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Sourced inspecifically to Facebook. Depicts character from a movie series, and no indication that studio that owns the series has released this depiction of the main character under any license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Bogus self and cc claim by serial copyvio uploader; actual provenance information required per COM:EVID/COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you believe that's selfie? I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, not a selfie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Permission required. --Tulsi 24x7 05:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy(?) redelete as not a selfie, per the March 8, 2023 decision, and ping User:Tulsi. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Also ping User:Taivo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Recreation of file deleted per community consensus. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
i don't to see it again DJ SkY GeE (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete You don't want to see it again? Fine. It's not a very good photo, since it doesn't show your face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal picture. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The picture was on internet in 2014 according to TinEye https://tineye.com/search/d0a634b7ed3f226fcfc92e03dfb03afedee109fb?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The picture was on internet in 2014 according to TinEye https://tineye.com/search/d0a634b7ed3f226fcfc92e03dfb03afedee109fb?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Seems to come from Allmusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/denis-kenzo-mn0002976512 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Usage of Commons as personnal storage space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Ad, Usage of Commons as personnal space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Usage of Commons as personnal space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: An author different than the uploader, is ceted in the metadatza CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO/not {{PD-simple}}. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The door is definitely above TOO. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright infringement Kotofey2016 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete low-quality, distorted, and not COM:INUSE. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright infringement Kotofey2016 (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
not own work, see https://www.ceskachutovka.cz/ Gampe (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Youre right. 181.43.5.243 16:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete bad angle, doesn’t demonstrate anything useful about male anatomy Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
DELETE, no own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.43.5.243 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see much educational value on COM:NUDITY. Only used in uploader's userpage A1Cafel (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, nothing amazing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete photos of lone nudists doing nothing in common settings are no different than any other unremarkable personal photos Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Red hair could be in scope, but with someone known. This should be deleted more for the false own work claim. 181.43.5.243 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense Furfur (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational use for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep yup, and full of socks... Show me a selection of photos which are better and nearly the same. --Saibo (Δ) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)- Delete No educational use. PavloFriend (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per PavloFriend Warfieldian (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Avi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Although mastrubation is in scope, this image is in poor quality and unused, and can be replaced by many alternatives in the category (Could be a possible copyvio due to lack of EXIF data) A1Cafel (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete looks suspiciously like badly downloaded and downsized professional (or semi-professional) porn Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Murals in Athens
editNo Freedom of Panorama in Greece. Copyrightable as street art.
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (158).jpg
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (159).jpg
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (160).jpg
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (161).jpg
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (162).jpg
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (178).jpg
- File:Athens, Odos Tournavitou.JPG
- File:Graffiti, Athens (10046334725).jpg
- File:Sprejeři jsou všude - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Geraki TLG 19:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece, although File:Athens, Odos Tournavitou.JPG is potentially acceptable under COM:DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Graffiti is not under panorama restrictions.--ManosHacker (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- You'd need to show that it was in fact graffiti and not an authorised mural. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Greece. Bending over backwards to retain content that we know is not freely licensed because we've decided that the rightsholder's claim would face difficulty in the courts goes against the spirit of the project and against the precautionary principle. Even if you reject that sentiment, the most recent judgement at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti is that in order for a work of graffiti to be allowed on Commons, there has to be a credible source indicating that the graffiti is illegal (because if it's legal, then it unambiguously has copyright protections). With the exception of File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (162).jpg and File:Sprejeři jsou všude - panoramio.jpg, the quality and/or placement of the works suggests that they're commissioned, not illegal. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Sprejeři jsou všude - panoramio.jpg and File:Graffiti, Athens (10046334725).jpg are illegal (thus graffiti). The latter has been painted over the background of circles that used to cover the whole wall by first drafting a white background, as seen in the detail, and then using black for the letters and sketch.--ManosHacker (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
In conclusion:
- File:Athens, Odos Tournavitou.JPG is potentially acceptable under COM:DM
- File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (162).jpg is not a mural
- File:Sprejeři jsou všude - panoramio.jpg is graffiti and
- File:Graffiti, Athens (10046334725).jpg is graffiti,
thus 4 files out of 9 have been blindly nominated for deletion.--ManosHacker (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that File:Graffiti, Athens (10046334725).jpg isn't commissioned. It's a signed, high quality, full wall piece. To me that makes it reasonably possible that this was done legally. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, the white background is draft. It is not high quality.--ManosHacker (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I've spotted the place, it should be easy to find out--ManosHacker (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC).
- Same artist (SONKE), same area, where all is illegal graffiti. You can also notice a black&white figure on the right having the same curls as the girl, that has been painted over. Definitely not a whole.--ManosHacker (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand Sonke has a technique that is copyrightable. Here Sonke admits he paints illegally while on the other hand he exhibits his work in galleries.
I leave the decision to the experienced users.--ManosHacker (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC) - It should most probably be deleted due to obvious copyrights.--ManosHacker (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Athens for more pertinent debate. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment The debate around "illegal grafitti", "commissioned work of art" etc. is irrelevant to the subject. The law protects "any original intellectual literary, artistic or scientific creation, expressed in any form". "The protection afforded under this Law shall apply regardless of the value of the work and its destination". "The initial holder of the economic right and the moral right in a work shall be the author of that work." There is a whole section on the greek law with exceptions that limit the power of authors to exploit the value of their work, but there is no mention or indication that it is limited by the legality of the action of creating the work or even on the ownership of the medium where the work of art was created. So, a) whether the work was commisioned or illegal, the copyright belongs to the creator. b) the law does not prohibit the creator to exploit the copyright even if he painted it on something that does not belong to him (no exclusivity to the medium holder). So anyone can create graffiti, pay a fine of 150 euros for vandalism, but charge 1000s of euros for reproductions of his work. -Geraki TLG 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment "Destroying art work" has not stopped the Municipality of Athens to clean-up 25 areas from graffiti, nor was any legal step against this action. Graffiti in the front of faces of buildings is illegal in Greece. Copyright has to be proven and the greek law asks for the author's signature.--ManosHacker (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "cleaning of the buildings" has nothing to do with copyright or value of the works. The municipality literally said (quote): "We are not against art and public intervention, on the contrary. The municipality, however, is not in the process of judging whether this smudge is art or not". Also, they are cleaning graffiti only from public buildings. Also, I have already mentioned that the medium used is not a factor for determining if something is copyrightable or not. The only factor is originality. Destroying the canvas does not proove anything about the copyright of its copies.
- No, the greek law does not require the author's signature. It says that it is only a way to initially presume who is the author and also (quote) "the same shall apply when the name that appears is a pseudonym, provided that the pseudonym leaves no doubt as to the person’s identity", and that, even for anonymous works, at any time the creator may reveal his identity, acquiring his rights at the condition they were while his indentity was hidden.
- In fact, many of this works are tags: the work is the signature itself. Many also do have signatures that they are already leave no doubt as to the person's identity. Other photos also are taken is some way that the signature is hidden. We cannot identify the creator not because he did not leave a signature but only because it is not revealed in this photo. Even the person who took the photo may not remember how they framed the photo. Because they did not care. But WE care. The photo is a derivative work of the graffito, and not original by itself. This photos are not photos of blank walls.
- Even the fact that they are placed in a category named "murals" prooves that the interesting (as per COM:SCOPE) thing in them are the murals or graffitis. Photos where the subject is something else and by accident contain graffitis (de minimis) should not be placed in such a category.
- It is interesting that above I see a debate about one of this graffitis, initially that it is "not high quality" (so no copyright?) and when identified, in fact "the artist has a copyrightable technique"... We are not here to judge if something is good art or not. Only something is original (and thus copyrightable) or not.
- -Geraki TLG 13:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Murals in Athens
editNo freedom of panorama in Greece, permission from the painter(s) is/are required.
- File:20211030 athenes400.jpg
- File:20211030 athenes401.jpg
- File:20211101 091 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 093 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 095 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 096 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 097 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 098 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 106 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 107 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 128 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 129 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 134 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 135 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 136 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 142 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 143 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 184 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 185 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 187 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 199 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 200 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 201 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 202 athens.jpg
- File:20211101 205 athens.jpg
- File:20211102 171 athenes.jpg
- File:20211102 207 athenes.jpg
- File:20211102 211 athenes.jpg
- File:20211102 212 athenes.jpg
- File:20211103 078 peiraia.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes013.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes014.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes056.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes057.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes058.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes068.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes069.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes070.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes079.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes094.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes096.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes097.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes106.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes107.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes108.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes112.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes118.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes141.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes142.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes143.jpg
- File:20211104 athenes151.jpg
- File:20221026 Athenes 0016.jpg
- File:A 1 athens july 2021 (1).jpg
- File:Ino-breaking-barriers-of-equality-psirri-2022.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Copy vio from this https://www.hab.kp.ru/daily/28313/4454300/ site. Author: Сергей Пятков Kotofey2016 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I had uploaded the photo of this book cover and was not aware of the Wikimedia policy, now that I know, I request to delete it. Khaatir (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, lower image from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: grabbed from the web, several Google Images hits. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, image from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, image from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: grabbed from the web, several Google Images hits. --Rosenzweig τ 18:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, image from profile picture Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Altes Firmenlogo. es gibt mittlerweile ein neues Logo. Ann-Christin Büscher (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (kein Löschgrund). Alte Logos werden nicht gelöscht nur weil sie alt sind, hier ist nicht die Firmenwebsite. --Rosenzweig τ 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, image from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, from this link Wiki Farazi (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry image, uploader request Enaecard (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free images; no evidence of permission to publish as a free work.
TadejM (t/p) 09:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio. Last one could be cropped out IMO for WD use. A09 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023030310006216 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 10:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep - permission by the artist's heir was received and is sorted out under the ticked above. — Yerpo Eh? 20:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept VRTS ticket received.--A09 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This photograph was taken by me, Julian Mora Oberlaender, and I have not authorized the user Pablomoreno10 to upload it under any type of license. Even though he mentions my name, it appears as if he was the author of the image, which he is not. As the author of this image I do not authorize its current use in Wikimedia Commons. Jomorao (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Historical photos from non-WMF wiki. The files do not have free licenses at that site and, even if they did, it would be license laundering as the uploaders there are not the photographers. Actual COM:EVID of provenance needed.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Я твою мать трахну , если ты эти файл удалишь , ублюдок SINONWOT (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Good to be honest but regrettably the source keeps some ©s to itself. En buen chileno esta situación está algo chueca... 191.126.14.25 23:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Same image as deleted twice before via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sumbul Touqeer Khan.jpg UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - clear copyright violation, the watermark on the image is pretty obviously an image scraper, pulling from anyplace they can without attribution or concern about copyright. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete : Clear copyright violation, see Commons:Derivative works. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 08:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
_(28120006130).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(28120006130).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
_(28120006130).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
_(28120006130).jpg){kind=link}
Stray partially-deleted "H" on carboxyl. Have File:TYROSINE1.png as correct. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & partially white background as well. The file was already replaced by the author with the corrected version. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright takesdown 印度孔雀 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- 画像検索をした所、JRA-VANの掲載画像と一致しており、無断転載かと思われます。 印度孔雀 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused. Sedruqk (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as image is in use on 2 projects. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect having H on carboxylate (contradictory to the "–" in that vicinity). File:TYROSINE1.png is self-consistent about protonation and charge. DMacks (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Likewise:
which is actually even worse with a stray "–" upper-left (is this all cropped from some uncited source?). DMacks (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both files per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both, per chemical error described above. Marbletan (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 23:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Probable copyvio and vandalism, uploaded by a blocked sock. Would normally qualify for speedy deletion but was inexplicably kept at a previous discussion (because we really, really need and will realistically, educationally use pornography depicting men eating feces apparently) . Dronebogus (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Verjacky, User talk:Kikijaco, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dégustation de caca.jpg, User talk:Jacksuck, and (extremely NSFW) https://smutty.com/user/jacky69/, the actual source of the images Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete --Trade (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete --Lukas Beck (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure what the processes are on Commons, but I think a ban on anything that this user uploads is warranted, as they're clearly not contributing positively to the project. EggsAndCakey (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- The user has been blocked, and is part of a regular crop of sockpuppets that upload this… well, crap. I’m not sure what else you’re suggesting. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, for God's sake. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Pointless duplicate of File:GER — BY — Regensburg - Donaumarkt 1 (Museum der Bayerischen Geschichte; Vertrag von Maastricht) (cropped).JPG (Also, it infringes copyright, as it is an unatributed modified copy of File:GER — BY — Regensburg - Donaumarkt 1 (Museum der Bayerischen Geschichte; Vertrag von Maastricht).JPG, which is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Germany license..) JBW (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
_(cropped).JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
At pH ~ 7, N would be protonated (net-neutral zwitterion) DMacks (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Likewise:
DMacks (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both files per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Logo of an artist CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Already on the internet at the beginning of the year according to TinEye https://tineye.com/search/f69fcb806427e318e4ac496fbb7f47d702668ff6?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as stated in the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Similar https://www.npo-kizuna-group.com/supporter eien20 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as explained in the metadata and the descritpion CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The source does not mention creative commons CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a promo photo, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author as in the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author as in the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete self-promotion, not notable. Hekerui (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The jam up king 191.126.48.55 00:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- No deletion reason. I'd keep it as just a good photo if there are no copyright problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Good to Go 191.126.48.55 00:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
33 KB, own work? 191.126.48.55 01:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be taken from https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Hussain/Alyami. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No reason to believe the tattoo is copyright-free. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- No reason except that Ben Lucas, the artist who did the tattoo, uploaded it with that status. The promotional watermark is a problem, but not the permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion - but the watermark should be removed. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of vagina photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Looking through the category, most images are shaved and Caucasian, which is selection bias. We have no representation of other ethnicities. --RAN (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Non of these information are given in the file describtion. Without these information the file is useless in points of size or ethnicities. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, she’s not Caucasian… RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is not important, what she is not, it is important would she is, othervice it is not special enough to be educationally useful Lukas Beck (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, she’s not Caucasian… RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Non of these information are given in the file describtion. Without these information the file is useless in points of size or ethnicities. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - similar to other images in the cat. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
“No permission” tag removed by the uploader. I’m not seeing anything at the stated source indicating this image is freely licensed. The user has linked to three different copyright statements without any real explanation. Two of the tree say the photo is not freely licensed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nomination. 83.61.231.21 11:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Fake license, not "own" but taken from the school resource(s). Not in use. Was a part or (self)adv.
- File:Структура управления гимназии 5.jpg
- File:Нынешняя фотография гимназии 5.png
- File:Средняя школа 5 Хабаровск 1950-ые.jpg
- File:Emblem of gimnazia 5 khabarovsk.png
Bilderling (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvios. --Wdwd (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:CateGermanotta
editAll the images uploaded by this user (7 at the time of this writing, and counting) are copies of photos easily findable online, none available with compatible licence. --Rojelio (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Closing deletion nomination - all files already deleted. BTW, all the nominated files should be listed in this DR... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement/G10. --Wdwd (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There are whites in file. 2001:448A:11AC:19D9:3086:DBA2:1170:C216 09:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusble and redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A police picture without link to the source, thus its impossible to know whether it was allowed to upload it according to the terms of the license described in this page. —מקף⁻‽ (Hyphen) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata. VRT-permission from author Yohan González Duany is needed. No evidence, that uploader Insular91 is the same person – his other uploads have different author names. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use. Doubt authorship and license. Not a notable singer. Uploader blocked. Drakosh (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
JPG image without uses; has a PNG counterpart VileGecko (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant to File:Güldendorf Flag.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Spam spam spam (monty Python spam song) Dronebogus (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of permission is provided. Hekerui (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Mariana Velez it is an official Beauty Queen and my self took that picture. I have the picture rigths. FranciscoUmana (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The picture has a watermark, so consider using Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator to provide evidence. Hekerui (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Mariana Velez it is an official Beauty Queen and my self took that picture. I have the picture rigths. FranciscoUmana (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality and low resolution we have at least this 8 better files File:Campanile di Giotto, Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore (Duomo), Florence (26649066546).jpg, File:Campanile Florencia 06.JPG, File:Campanile Giotto - Florence (IT52) - 2022-08-31 - 1.jpg, File:Campanile Giotto - panoramio.jpg, File:Campanile Florencia 04.JPG, File:Campanile Florencia 05.JPG, File:Campanile di Giotto (15610140987).jpg, File:Campanile Duomo Firenze.JPG Oursana (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
,_Florence_(26649066546).jpg){kind=link}
_-_2022-08-31_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation of Ellen Weissberg Gould 2A00:23C5:FF94:6F01:181A:F75A:630E:352C 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
suspected copyvio, ArcGis data likely proprietary Enyavar (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Random picture of unidentified people standing in a corridor — poor quality, no educational value whatsoever. Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
How do you say, OOS or OoS or oos? 181.43.5.243 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
False own work about an F10 guy or gay. 181.43.5.243 16:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This PDF contains photos of unknown copyright status which are highly unlikely to all be the uploader's own work. Marbletan (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A selfie? Certainly not. Who is the copyright holder, and where is their permission? 2003:C0:8F16:EE00:C121:9381:69B1:FD49 17:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Where does anything say that it is a selfie? It was uploaded in 2018 by a user called HossenfelderS. It may well be that this was Hossenfelder herself uploading a publicity picture which she owns the rights to. The picture is the same one she uses on her YouTube channel banner (only flipped) so we know she has rights to the image. The question is whether the user who uploaded it is really her and is in a position to licence it to us. I think it is likely but that's not the same as proof. DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Depends on what legal system we are talking about. Since we are talking about a German scientist, we may safely assume that this is within the German legal system where the copyright (or Urheberrecht, rather) is non-transferable. Only the photographer can own it; it is not possible to sell it along with the usage rights.
- So, assuming that the user HossenfelderS is Ms Hossenfelder herself, the only way for her to own the copyright is if this is a selfie. --2003:C0:8F16:EE00:1C3B:3586:A0E3:9634 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The file got uploaded three days after the creation of the article on enwiki. @Jesswade88: have you maybe contact to Sabine Hossenfelder and can help about this topic? --ɱ 18:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Could well be a selfie/self-timer. I can't find no other evidence of copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lottiemac1 (talk · contribs)
editVarious photographs here are being uploaded under a claim of own work, but multiple different authors are listed among them (including Sean Pollock and Jeff Moore). As these photographs are sufficiently original to merit (thin) copyright protections in their own rights that are separate from the various copyrighted works depicted in them, we need evidence of permission from the copyright holder of the photographs to host these copyrighted images on Commons. However, we don't appear to have such permission, so these should be deleted in line with COM:PRP for lacking evidence of permission.
- File:Thoughts Unseen Install image credit- Ken Adlard.jpg
- File:Thoughts Unseen Install Photo Ken Adlard.jpg
- File:Installation View- ‘The Space Between’, Thomas J Price, Hauser & Wirth St. Moritz, 2022 Photo- Jon Etter.jpg
- File:Licked perfromance piece by thomas j price.jpg
- File:PriceNetwork.jpg
- File:Warm Shores -image credit- Sean Pollock.jpg
- File:Reaching Out by Thomas J Price. 2020. photo by Jeff Moore 02.jpg
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joaquín Arturo Rodríguez Hidalgo (talk · contribs)
editFiles outside of COM:SCOPE.
- File:2 Contenido de JOTA MEMERO.jpg
- File:3 Contenido de JOTA MEMERO.jpg
- File:JOTA MEMERO.jpg
- File:4 Contenido de JOTA MEMERO.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Fictional COA/ flag, out of scope. B.T.Thatcher (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unexplained map. Metadata describes it as "2000 US presidential election results", so I guess it's a fire-and-forget imaginary history map from a Reddit user taking an infobox preview screenshot somewhere. Belbury (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently one of a stupillion fictional election maps, Delete --Enyavar (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be cropped out of the banner here: http://www.crisis.com.au/about.html Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
author and uploader are different, not own work Lesless (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- User Кирилл Кустарьов has repeatedly uploaded files with a fake license in the past. Jim Hokins (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright vio, found previosly https://privately.ru/sport-diety/201934-kak-aktrisa-natalja-bochkareva-pohudela-na-samom-dele-na-minus-20-kg-aktrisa.html --Drakosh (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
author and uploader are different, not own work, see also other uploads Lesless (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
author and uploader are different, not own work, see also other uploads Lesless (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio, no permission by copyright holder (see exif data). 2003:C0:8F16:EE00:1C3B:3586:A0E3:9634 19:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
incomplete information FLAVIA BRILLI (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
claudia daudia danlella 152.172.104.30 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not own work, uploader with long history of copyvios. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This the only contribution of the user. Is this own work. The metadata mention: "Auteur ARMIN_BACH Auteursrechtenhouder WWW.HOLZ-IT.DE". The website http://www.holz-it.de is about furniture. What about the copyright? Is user Faxtester = Armin Bach? Wouter (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is my own work. I did this shot myself. No matter what the EXIF-data says. Faxtester (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, credit in EXIF data not matching the uploader, and no plausible explanation given by uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Previously published at https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/2017/03/30/organ-donors-give-gift-life/99824948/, ownership unclear Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Westphalian587 (talk · contribs)
editApparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before upload (e.g., File:Mostholytrinityfowler.jpg is here; File:St. marys stained glass.jpg is here; File:Front of Saint Marys Westphalia.jpg is here; File:St. Mary Westphalia Alter.png; File:St. Mary Westphalia Alter.png is here; etc.), user serial copyvio uploader, etc.
- File:Mostholytrinityfowler.jpg
- File:St. Mary Christmas Westphalia.jpg
- File:St. marys stained glass.jpg
- File:St. Mary Parish clock.jpg
- File:Front of Saint Marys Westphalia.jpg
- File:St. Marys westphalia alter.jpg
- File:St.mary's westphalia Rosary garden.png
- File:St. Mary Westphalia Alter.png
- File:Our lady of westphalia picture.jpg
- File:St. Mary Alter.jpg
- File:St. mary church interior.png
- File:St. Mary Church, Westphalia, Michigan.jpg
- File:Moses striking the rock.jpg
- File:Old St. Mary's Fire.jpg
- File:Stain Glass St. Marys.jpg
- File:Westphalia Settlement.jpg
- File:Piratepetepic.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 22:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo of a screen Joanbanjo (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo of a screen Joanbanjo (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect. Sedruqk (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Fichier inutilisé 193.55.66.240 15:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Simple design, should be relicensed. A09 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope XxakixX (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
irrtümlich wurde größeres Bild mit gleichem Bildinhalt hochgeladen, anstatt das ursprüngliche Bild zu verbessern Dguendel 15:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate of File:Bad Langensalza, die Bonifaciusgasse.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder. Image at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C397664 says Item copyright: Copyright unknown. More here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder. Image at https://tvblackbox.com.au/page/2022/05/31/archibald-winning-artist-wendy-sharpe-sets-painting-challenge-on-space-22/ - with credit "Space 22 (image - ABC)" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We cannot be sure, that the license applies, because here is no evidence of publication more than 70 years ago. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:SCOTUS-Oct 03 2022-Main Document-Brief amicus curiae of The Onion filed=20221006144840674 Novak Parma Onion Amicus Brief.pdf
editNot a work of the US Govt. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court not by the federal government.
Oh, I guess I should put more stuff here. The fact that it's not a work of the U.S. govt is a problem because that's what the license wrongly says about it. So it's not free. Ilex verticillata (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am in contact with the author. They are reviewing their options. I expect they will have a decision shortly.
- I have informed them of the free license requirements and referred them to the Interactive Release Generator.
- --CmdrDan (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Album cover art
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO, the only copyrighted element of the cover is the reproduced painting, which is in the public domain already. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, no objection there, I missed that detail in the description text and was quickly judging it as one of several album covers being claimed as own work. Belbury (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Fake flag Alexphangia Talk 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Fake flag Alexphangia Talk 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused file Sedruqk (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Question What's it a duplicate of? Unused is not a deletion reason, and it was kept yesterday. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:1956 giant dahlia flowered zinnias - Steckler Seed Company, Inc (IA 1956giantdahliaf19jste).pdf
editThis file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently. Should be checked for non-renewal. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a copyright notice in this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal either. --RAN (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright notice. Ooligan (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.. These should have been regular deletion requests. Speedy deletion is only for obvious cases, non-renewal should be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a copyright notice in this. Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently. 1928 book. Non-renewal should be checked, and 1928 books should not in general principle be put into speedy deletion without making sure they are still in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons:precautionary principle requires some evidence, it reads we need "significant doubt". Why doesn't ShakespeareFan00 check the renewal database prior to a deletion nomination, he is making everyone else do the work based on very tiny probability of a renewal. The NYPL found that 75% of all books published up until 1964, never filed for a renewal. So the odds are slim for these seed catalogues, which do not meet the threshold of "significant doubt" for either a speedy nomination, or a precautionary deletion nomination. Do the research yourself first. For this publication, there was no renewal, and for a random sampling of the nominated publications, I have not found a single renewal. Renewal was expensive, which is why the renewal database is filled with entries from the large publishers, that have a staff legal department to file for renewals. I think all the speedy tags should just be removed and ShakespeareFan00, should search through the renewal database on their own time. --RAN (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN. The only reason why I filed a DR was to save it from the copyvio tag. Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can just remove tags where the rationale is invalid. That is the risk taken by taking the speedy route, anyone can remove the tag without going to a full nomination. I wasn't criticizing you, I was addressing the speedy deletion nominator. --RAN (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf
editThis file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently. Converting to DR because non-renewal should be checked and speedy deletion is inappropriate for something that would unquestionably be public domain in 2 years. Abzeronow (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing ion the renewal database for this publication. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN. Ooligan (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently. Non-renewal should be checked. Converting to DR. Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal, required up to 1964. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently. Non-renewal should be checked, converting to DR. Abzeronow (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a copyright notice. Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
1946 publication. Copyright notice on page 2. Non-renewal should be checked for this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal, required up to 1964. --RAN (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, this can be closed as kept then. Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewals, as I said previously, these are not eligible for a speedy deletion. The renewal database can be checked prior to adding a speedy tag. The person love's Shakespeare, but apparently hates seed catalogues. Renewals have been compiled into multiple databases that are easy to check, I check at least two, incase one might contain a typo, preventing me from finding the target in a search. As I pointed out previously 75% of all books from 1923 to 1964 were not renewed, so expecting a seed company to renew is pretty slim, and not eligible for a speedy delete on that premise. The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not just having a publication date between 1927 and 1964. --RAN (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for doing the check. I figured that chances of copyright renewal on seed catalogs was next to nil. I don't really have access to the renewal databases and it normally takes me at least 15 minutes to look through one pdf to make sure it doesn't have a copyright notice. I might continue to look through the 1970s catalogs that are mislabeled as government works that ShakespeareFan has a DR on to check for copyright notices but that will probably take me a few weeks to complete. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal, which was required up to 1964. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Abzeronow (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Steckler "the south's best" seeds - summer and fall 1946 (IA stecklerthesouth19jste 5).pdf
editThis file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewals in the database for this company, this covers publications up to 1964. --RAN (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Abzeronow (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any copyright notice. Abzeronow (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal either. --RAN (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't see a copyright notice. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewal of any implied copyright found. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Steckler "the south's best" seeds - summer and fall 1939 (IA stecklerthesouth19jste 1).pdf
editThis file was initially tagged by ShakespeareFan00 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: On the basis that File:1929 garden manual for southern growers - south's leader and most dependable source of seed supplies (IA 1929gardenmanual19jste).pdf contained a copyright notice at the bottom of one of the pages, I'm flagging all post 1928 editions on the precautionary principle. No objection to others checking for the absence of notices or lack of renewals however, or reviewing independently.
Converting to DR for discussion. Will check for notice later. Non-renewal should also be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No renewals in the database for this company, this covers publications up to 1964. --RAN (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The image is taken directly from Shipspotting.com. It's unlikely the user who published this photo in Commons also owns the rights to this work. Tunestoons (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eric Duff as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Brazil has a very high threshold of originality per COM:TOO Brazil. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per IronGargoye. --Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO/not {{PD-textlogo}}. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I think this one is borderline, at least in the US. The US has a very high threshold of originality, and I think this may actually fall under it. The only slightly complex elements would be the gear-shaped letters, and those are about the same level of complexity as the arrow-shaped letters on File:Subway logo (with slogan).svg, which the Copyright Office denied protection to. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely more borderline. Mostly made of letters or geometric shapes (which I believe gears would be). (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep He thought the same as the two previous users. Sebano1999 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dudhhr as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Used only for spam draft on enwiki — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems reasonable that this person may warrant a Wikidata item given the news coverage (i.e. it's in-scope), and this freely licensed image would be useful in illustrating that Wikidata item. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Based on the search results I got, I think the notability is a little thin, but maybe there are more results in Spanish. The license isn't in question, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the license was never in question, though a Wikidata entry for the person seems reasonable given that he's a public figure who's been covered. He would seem to be a concretely identifiable entity. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Keep for now - this image may realistically be used by someone. --Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused and duplicate file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: Duplicate of what? no reason to delete. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused and duplicate file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: Duplicate of what? no reason to delete. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unused and duplicate file. Sedruqk (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate of what? no reason to delete. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tony Patti Radio Consultant (talk · contribs)
editSelfies/self-promotional personal files outside of COM:SCOPE. All have highly promotional descriptions. Uploader has no contributions to any Wikimedia project other than this self-promotion here.
- File:Tony Patti in the Studio.jpg
- File:Tony Patti Radio Consultant.jpg
- File:Tony Patti Building Radio Empires.jpg
- File:Tony Patti in his Studio.jpg
- File:Tony Patti at Capital FM.jpg
- File:Tony Patti on art.jpg
- File:Tony Patti at an event.jpg
- File:Tony Patti in a studio.jpg
- File:Tony Patti Live.jpg
- File:Tony Patti talking to a live audience.jpg
- File:Tony Patti on the Radio.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Brief biography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a Doctor, not the journalist Bill Ryan. MPC 104.177.222.135 14:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The image is properly identified, just added to the wrong Wikipedia article. That is a problem for that Wikipedia, not Commons. If we deleted every image that someone added to the wrong article, we would have no images left. --RAN (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. (Copy of File:Family (version 2).png) Sedruqk (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate of what? no reason to delete. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Obviously a professional promo photo and not a selfie. Company or website (zedler.de) cannot be copyright holder. 2003:C0:8F16:EE00:F860:F181:105D:9CEC 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Das Foto stammt von einem externen Fotografen, dessen Zusage zur Verwendung erteilt wurde. Kann dies irgendwo ergänzt werden? Zedler.de (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Zur Verwendung" ist nicht dasselbe wie "zur Umlizenzierung". Ihr habt das Nutzungsrecht, nicht aber das Urheberrecht; das ist nach deutschem Recht unveräußerlich. Der Urheber des Fotos muss seine Einwilligung in die hier erforderliche Lizenz einsenden. --2003:C0:8F17:8B00:4443:33F0:F42E:1DDA 10:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Der Fotograf muss sich an COM:VRT/de wenden und per E-Mail die Erlaubnis geben, die Datei unter einer Freien Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. XxakixX (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also File:Portrait Dirk Zedler Wikipedia.jpg. I'll manually add this DR to that file. Uploader has already been notified of the addition of this file to it. Basically, uploader should go to COM:VRT to verify they are the company in question and/or the copyright holder. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
From a likely Flickrwashing account, previously published at https://www.theillest.pl/lookbook-young-reckless-feat-lil-durk-lato-2014/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- And File:G Herbo portrait.jpg, another low-res image from the same Flickr account, is likely Flickrwashed as well. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The copyright status is wrong, as is the name of the photo (looks like it was taken in Chile, not in Turkey). This photo was taken by CIGIDEN see original post. Other web pages also refer to this institution [1]. This file is copyrighted, so it will be deleted. Uncitoyen (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pavelsamuta1 (talk · contribs)
editSpam contributions of a user, who is indefblocked in 7 wiki for spamming: Special:CentralAuth/Pavelsamuta1.
- File:Pavel A. Samuta is 'n ontwerpingenieur en entrepreneur..jpg
- File:Pavel A. Samuta is a design engineer and entrepreneur..jpg
- File:Isistimu ye-Compass 3D ye-2D ne-3D eqinile ne-surface parametric design..jpg
- File:Okwezobuchwepheshe Umdwebo.jpg
- File:បច្ចេកទេស គំនូរ.jpg
- File:ប្រព័ន្ធត្រីវិស័យ 3D សម្រាប់ការរចនា 2D និង 3D រឹង និងប៉ារ៉ាម៉ែត្រផ្ទៃ។.jpg
- File:Tehnical Kudhirowa.jpg
- File:Sawir Farsamo.jpg
- File:Nidaamka 3D Compass ee loogu talagalay 2D iyo 3D adag iyo naqshadaynta dusha sare..jpg
- File:Pūnaha kāpehu 3D mō te hoahoa 2D me te 3D mārō me te hoahoa tawhā mata.jpg
- File:2D we 3D gaty we ýerüsti parametriki dizaýn üçin 3D ulgamy..jpg
- File:Tehniki çyzgy.jpg
- File:Disegnu tecnicu.jpg
- File:Disegnu tecnicu per a pruduzzione Pavel Samuta.jpg
- File:Sisitemu Sisitemu Senses 3d y'ibintu bibiri -urwego hamwe na bitatu -gumaho-gushushanya no gushushanya hejuru..jpg
- File:Gushushanya tekinike.jpg
- File:Mfiridwuma ho mfonini.jpg
- File:Pavel A. Samuta è un ingegnere progettista e imprenditore..jpg
- File:Pavel A. Samuta.jpg
- File:Pavel A Samuta.jpg
- File:Тайлбартай 3D загвар.png
- File:Электронная модель сборочной единицы.png
- File:Электронная модель детали.jpg
- File:Boronizing.png
- File:Сhromizing.jpg
- File:Вантаж балансувальний креслення.jpg
- File:Заплечик.png
- File:Изготовление чертежей и моделирование по образцу детали.jpg
- File:Обратный инжиниринг продуктов.jpg
- File:Reverse engineering.jpg
- File:Development of a 3D model and drawing of a document of a metal structure.png
- File:SPA.29102021.001 - Press-forma Tehnički crtež.jpg
- File:SPA.23082021.012-01 - फ्लो डिवाइडर तकनीकी आरेख.jpg
- File:SPA.182.000-01 SB - Kragtoevoer Montagetekening Tegniese tekenwerk.jpg
- File:SPA.182.000-01 - Kragtoevoer eenheid Onderdele spesifikasie (2).jpg
- File:SPA.182.000-01 - Kragtoevoer eenheid Onderdele spesifikasie (1).jpg
- File:Tekninen piirtäminen.jpg
- File:Technical drawing CAD.jpg
- File:SPA.29072020.002 - Gear block.jpg
- File:SPA.08042020.001 - Shaft.jpg
- File:SPA.29072020.001 - Gear shaft.jpg
- File:SPA.1082021.000 SB - Canopy assembly drawing of metal structures.jpg
- File:SPA.1082021.000 SB - Canopy assembly drawing of a metal structure, section.jpg
- File:Gear wheel.jpg
- File:SPA.7062021.001 - Gear wheel Z51 D106.jpg
- File:Раскрой отводов и колен круглого сечения. Чертеж.jpg
- File:ТМ7.3000.212.000 - Накладка боковая развертка.jpg
- File:ТМ7.3000.212.000 - Накладка боковая чертеж.jpg
- File:Technical drawing Carriage Engineer Samuta P A.jpg
- File:СПА.116.001 - Вал переднего привода Инженер Самута П А.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
B.T.Thatcher (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kadı: as involved admin. --B.T.Thatcher (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Make that 8 wikis. From the cross-wiki side, this user spammed their own biography on ~70 wikis or added a paragraph to a technical article with a spam link to their website with machine translation. Only a few of these remain now as they have been deleted/removed. Most of the files on Commons had an unrelated link to pavelsamuta.com or pavel-samuta.livejournal.com in the file description (so not being the source of the work). Quite a lot of them are just duplicates uploaded with a title in a different language. Files depicting the person himself (eg. this and this) can be speedied under F10 as this person is clearly not a constructive contributor anywhere. I don't know if stretching the others to COM:EDUSE is too much since some photos are used in some projects, but they were added by the user themselves, so COM:SPAM maybe? ~StyyxHeya! 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
not own work, see https://www.ceskachutovka.cz/ Gampe (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per {{Non-free graffiti}}. -- Geagea (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question How do you know they are graffiti rather than legally painted murals? Murals are subject to copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and COM:PCP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. This painting is not at least 70 years old, so it is copyrighted. Not meant for permanent being in the public space, so no FOP. I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Vera (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The given argument "Not meant for permanent being in the public space" is pure speculation. Fact is, that the image clearly shows, that the painting is hammered to the tree with two nails which is a perminent setting. These kind of boards are normally located in or close to a public space. It this situation FOP does apply. -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. I agree with Mdd. The context of how the sign is affixed, what the sign is made of, and where the sign is attached all leads me to conclude that it is permanently placed. This is what is necessary for freedom of panorama in The Netherlands. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion per discussion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not a Louvre artwork but a modern artwork. probably a work by Nelson Dias Lopes. See https://www.gazette-drouot.com/telechargement/catalogue?venteId=25728 page 5. Or this can also be and indian modern good luck resin cow. In any case this is not a public domain artwork, and not a Louvre one. Miniwark (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See this thread on en-wp for context. Tigraan (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This file, and any derivative works, are taken from [2] which says "These images have been produced by the Friends Of Real Lancashire and can be used freely on your own website (...)". I tried to contact them to get a PD or CC-BY-SA release, but I have had no reply.
- If that language is considered enough to be a release as PD, then the licensing of that file needs to be changed to PD.
- If not, then it is probably not CC-BY-SA either, and that file plus all the 11 derivatives should be deleted. (Yeah, that sucks.)
- I would say it is not PD. "On your own website" sounds like a restriction on licensing. Tigraan (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - No irrevocable license and no license for use in print, only your own web site. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
For sure this is a picture from an old newspaper and not own work Leokand (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. Firstly, I wanna note that this is a photo of a veteran, then the source of this photo has not been identified, it's really from an old book, most likely. Without a photo there would not be an article article. Aram09 12 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Not public domain in both Singapore (until 2025) and the United States (until 2050). Billytanghh (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Not CC-BY-SA, as the uploader is not the uploader but the painter who painted this painting. The painting was released in 1943, meaning that it still have copyright in the United States (which is also the origin) until 2039. Billytanghh (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Although there is a signature, there is no (c). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Own work? 191.126.14.25 23:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - facebook image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Small image, lack of EXIF data B dash (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This picture is used on a lot of Wikimedia Projects. Plus, it seems to have been taken in the 90's. This file may be a "paper photo" scanned. Plus, as the uploader has uploaded several pictures about this suject, he's likely to be the author of the picture. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission). Upload is from 2012 when COM:EVID standards were more lax, should be discussed. Previously kept at DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Authors own work. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Small image, lack of EXIF data B dash (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This picture is used on a lot of Wikimedia Projects. Plus, it seems to have been taken in the 90's. This file may be a "paper photo" scanned. Plus, as the uploader has uploaded several pictures about this suject, he's likely to be the author of the picture. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission). Upload is from 2012 when COM:EVID standards were more lax, should be discussed. Previously kept at DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. . Authors own work. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Small image, lack of EXIF data B dash (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This picture is used on a lot of Wikimedia Projects. Plus, it seems to have been taken in the 90's. This file may be a "paper photo" scanned. Plus, as the uploader has uploaded several pictures about this suject, he's likely to be the author of the picture. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission). Upload is from 2012 when COM:EVID standards were more lax, should be discussed. Previously kept at DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. . Authors own work. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 | Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons. |
- This request concerns all 500+ files in Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi). There is no evidence that these images are in the public domain in the US, as required by COM:PD (no publication date or information available, only that the book was acquired by the University of Toronto in 1965). There is no evidence these images are in the public domain in India: B. K. Mitra and Brijendra, identified as illustrators by User:Aavindraa at Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi) - some pictures have signatures - lack death year information. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhagavan Vishnu.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gods prayed Vishnu for Incarination.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:God Vishnu.jpg. Hekerui (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Images in COM:INDIA enter public domain domain 60 years after publishing. en:Gita Press was established in 1923. If we do a quick calculation, 2023 - 60 = 1963. The Toronto library acquired the book in 1965. If we assume the book was published exactly in 1965 (which cannot be determined), then it enters public domain in 2025 which is 2 years away. The book was published anywhere from 1923 to 1965. If it was published before 1963, it is in the public domain. These images are used all over the Wikimedia projects and obliterating the set of data would ruin a lot of links and references. I suggest keeping the images given these points. Aavindraa (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I strongly support keep of this photo and ALL the images in that book. I don't understand why it is being nominated. Historyday01 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This was published in 1955, per India Times, and is therefore PD-INDIA. LukeHancock (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has not been demonstrated for this edition or in general, see elsewhere in this discussion. I also believe that it is questionable that this, if it were shown to be correct, would apply to all artworks by named artists in this publication. And there needs to be a demonstrated public domain status in the US for this work to be hosted on this project. Hekerui (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, according to this Time of India article, the Hindi-translation book of Mahabharata (which contains these img) was published in 1955 — ...In 1955, Gita Press had published the Mahabharata in Hindi in 6 khand and since then more than four lakh copies of it have been published. ... As per Public domain in India, "works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published". Therefore, the pictures are in Public domain since 2015..245CMR.•👥📜
- @Aavindraa: , since the publication date is clear, I request you to add this essential date to the imgs. I am not active that's why..245CMR.•👥📜
- Updated Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi) with your finding. Thanks! Aavindraa (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please give a page number in the archive source for the 1955 info, if possible. If this were the 1955 edition it would enter the public domain in the US in 2051 per COM:HIRTLE. Hekerui (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hekerui I was able to find 3 books that put it as 1930s, 1953+ and 1956 - couldn't say with 100% confidence whether they are referring to this book series or something else. Perhaps you or others could verify? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort. I asked for evidence in the book because we have no way of determining from these notes when this version was published, could be all the way to 1965, and what the publishing date of these pictures is. Information on the artists and the original publishing date/circumstance is necessary for determining public domain status. Hekerui (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hekerui I was able to find 3 books that put it as 1930s, 1953+ and 1956 - couldn't say with 100% confidence whether they are referring to this book series or something else. Perhaps you or others could verify? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please give a page number in the archive source for the 1955 info, if possible. If this were the 1955 edition it would enter the public domain in the US in 2051 per COM:HIRTLE. Hekerui (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Updated Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi) with your finding. Thanks! Aavindraa (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Aavindraa: , since the publication date is clear, I request you to add this essential date to the imgs. I am not active that's why..245CMR.•👥📜
- Delete as copyvio. This is not an instance of what the corporate authorship rule has intended. These images are not an anonymous corporate document but individual work of art created by specific, if unnamed, Indian artists, to which standard copyright rules apply. Even if sold in 4 million copies. — kashmīrī 02:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- This Mahabharata is a "work of corporate authorship", the corporation being en:Gita Press. There are multiple people involved in translation, illustration and publishing, but collectively they are called as the Gorakhpur Gita Press. Aavindraa (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of the corporate authorship claim, namely that the artists signed away their rights. Instead I see that the artworks are frequently signed by the artists. Hekerui (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- PD-India "Anonymous works" have the same copyright terms as corporate works, if you can find the name of the artists for each image, then we can look up death dates. This should have been handled with a question at the Village Pump, or nominating a single image as a test case. --RAN (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the description for test cases. Artist names exist, per description. Additionally, U.S. copyright status does not rely on artist names per COM:HIRTLE and needs to be considered. Hekerui (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Redtigerxyz: These imgs are very imp for many Hinduism articles, hoping for your participation in this issue..245CMR.•👥📜
- Keep But the license should be "PD-India". --RAN (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment this is set on the top-level Category. Per the criteria of PD-India, these files are in the public domain. If need be, we should apply it to each individual file. Aavindraa (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, add appropriate license under fair use. The image is meaningful in some Indian mythological articles. Neurofreak (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Neurofreak: Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use files. See COM:Licensing. --Rosenzweig τ 11:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yes! The image can be kept in the main Wikipedia under a fair use license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Neurofreak: Whichever image of the 500+ affected by this deletion request you're referring to, you'll have to transfer it to en.wp yourself. There is no automated process for this. Best do it soon. --Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- why you want to delete. These are all from a book which is out of copyright. It was clearly shown in website which i have downloaded. Baddu676 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Neurofreak: Whichever image of the 500+ affected by this deletion request you're referring to, you'll have to transfer it to en.wp yourself. There is no automated process for this. Best do it soon. --Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yes! The image can be kept in the main Wikipedia under a fair use license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Neurofreak: Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use files. See COM:Licensing. --Rosenzweig τ 11:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or move to Hindi Wikisource. The book is in public domain in India —Vis M (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
As noted above,these works will be under copyright in the USA until some time in the future, probably until 1/1/2051. If you want to move them to WP:EN do it now. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- The file which are in public domain in india also kept in wikicommons. Baddu676 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- PD in India but not in the USA as required on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Contains terms that don't exist, for example "cousin-pibling", "cousin-nibling", "great-cousin-pibling", "great-cousin-nibling". 2001:4BB8:258:1DC6:E905:C9F:4AA7:4AE 18:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --ƏXPLICIT 01:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
obvious copyvio per uploader comment UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image is from BollywoodHungama which does allow some of their images to be uploaded here with a compatible license as long as it's:
- attributed to Bollywood Hungama;
- from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page);
- of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India;
- taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer;
- The image is sourced to the /parties-and-events/ sub-site and it seems to meet the criteria listed in the BH template in the license section of that image. Is there something that I've missed where this doesn't meet the criteria? Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Sajid Khan, Sumbul Touqeer Khan and Shiv Thakare snapped attending the Bigg Boss party.jpg
edit
obvious copyvio per user comment UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image is from BollywoodHungama which does allow some of their images to be uploaded here with a compatible license as long as it's:
- attributed to Bollywood Hungama;
- from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page);
- of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India;
- taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer;
- The image is sourced to the /parties-and-events/ sub-site and it seems to meet the criteria listed in the BH template in the license section of that image. Is there something that I've missed where this doesn't meet the criteria? Ravensfire (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep : I checked the file with Google image search, couldn't find any link where file uploaded before BH. So I reviewed the file. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @ManaliJain Which edit is UtherSRG referring to?. Hi @UtherSRG just by the user comment it's obvious copyvio or did you do some research before nominating it?. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no clue why is this file been nominated for deletion. As far as I know and remember, there's been no copyright violation from my side. ManaliJain (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG Can you provide the link of the user comments. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Not an own work 181.43.5.243 13:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Wrong own work claim. Files are obtained from the social media.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Hijazilanai
edit- File:جريدة قديمة تتحدث عن حجازي.jpg
- File:Djamila Bouhired.jpg
- File:Djamila Bouhired (cropped).jpg
- File:صورة لحجازي قبل اسره.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These files are scans/photographs of newspapers, most likely copyrighted and not owned by the uploader. SWinxy (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not share the same opinion with you.
- The newspaper is a Palestinian newspaper showing a picture of the detention of "Mahmoud Hijaz" in 1965, a picture of his lawyer, and a picture of the Algerian activist who was previously detained in 1957, also Djamila Bouhired at that time.
- If we rely on the laws of Palestine for property rights, the newspaper has passed 50 years of publication.
- And if we rely on international laws, newspapers became protected by property rights only after 1977.
- - Also, the work is not published on the Internet, and there is no herd evidence of the existence of intellectual property for this newspaper.
- - The full image is not used in Wikipedia, but only a cropped part is used on Djamila Bouhired's page, and the image used in the newspaper has no intellectual property in the country of origin, Algeria, because all images before 1987 are the public domain. Riad Salih (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question Which newspaper, and was it operating under Jordanian or Egyptian law, considering that there was no independent Palestine in 1965? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of the conflict, Palestine was always independent and it's has it's own copyrights rules.
- The picture of Djamila Bouhired used in the newspaper has no intellectual property in the country of origin, Algeria, because all images before 1987 are the public domain.
- ----
- And if we take Jordanian or Egyptian laws into considrations the newspaper is +50 year. Riad Salih (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering the question, but you're telling us there was such a thing as Palestinian law in Palestine in 1965, when the West Bank and East Jerusalem were treated by Jordan as completely part of Jordan, were under Jordanian law, and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration? Palestine was always independent from Jordan and Egypt before 1967 and then from Israel since 1967? I wish that had been true. If this newspaper was published in Algeria after Algerian independence, I think Algerian law applies. If all these countries' laws put the newspaper in the public domain, whose law applies doesn't change the outcome, but I find your reasoning a bit confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- The content in the newspaper isn't copyrighted.
- There is 3 images in the front of the newspaper all in public domaine.
- I don't see any need to delete a picture that has been in wikimedia since 2016.
- The picture isn't avaible on the internet exept here and there is no proof that it's copyright. Riad Salih (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- But which newspaper is this from? How do you know it's from a Palestinian one? SWinxy (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @SWinxy from the text I know it's Palestinian Riad Salih (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering the question, but you're telling us there was such a thing as Palestinian law in Palestine in 1965, when the West Bank and East Jerusalem were treated by Jordan as completely part of Jordan, were under Jordanian law, and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration? Palestine was always independent from Jordan and Egypt before 1967 and then from Israel since 1967? I wish that had been true. If this newspaper was published in Algeria after Algerian independence, I think Algerian law applies. If all these countries' laws put the newspaper in the public domain, whose law applies doesn't change the outcome, but I find your reasoning a bit confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - certainly have URAA copyrights. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trade as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: probably not TOO. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Relazioni di parentela in italiano.png. GFJ (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given as to why this file is inferior to the other version, see COM:REDUNDANT. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused. Sedruqk (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Neither is used, but it's really not clear which one is better, at least as a thumbnail, which is all that really counts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Both could be replaced by an SVG version, and I added the {{SVG}} template to both. --QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 14:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already by Túrelio. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate and unused file. Sedruqk (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a duplicate. Obviously it's a translation and adaptation into spanish kinship system of the file File:Relatives_Chart.svg, as it's credited in the file's page. It hasn't links for now because it has been replaced everywhere by File:Parentesco (español).png by Sedruqk, the proposer of this deletion request, an evident duplicate and uncredited derivative work of that of my own. I request to maintain the File:Relatives Chart es.svg (which in adition is a vectorial file), and demand credit in File:Parentesco (español).png, as creator of the original work. Rondador (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fake license? User Timur Bekeyev licensed the autograph of Marat Bekeyev as an own work. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am son of the author, I am uploading on his behalf and I was given rights to use any of his work for any purpose I consider needed. Timur.bekeyev (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
ikbenfrits.nl geeft geen vrijgave van het logo Thieu1972 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- COM:TOO Netherlands? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- De blauwe strepen en groene bolletjes zijn meer dan alleen een logo met letters. Thieu1972 (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Appears to be below the ToO of the Netherlands. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lomita as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Affiche Yann (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The picture may be old enough, and the rest too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)