Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/30

As said in Commons:Screenshots Microsofts policy [1] is not compatible with Wikimedia guidelines. Matt (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep So what? Simply {{PD-ineligible}}. --Leyo 11:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am confused of the last two DRs (see my talk page). Any special reason for this coincidence? ;-)
  On topic: Matt, please read the section you have linked to (Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products) in full: ".. may or may not be copyrightable, as they are purely geometric. ..." and see Threshold of originality. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works,[3] so screenshots of Microsoft products would go against Commons policy. The Windows operating system itself is a Microsoft product, and the precise appearance of standard operating system widgets in some themes may or may not be copyrightable, as they are purely geometric.

— Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products

part of some presentation - promotional, out of scope, possibly non free Slfi (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Seems to be out of scope. Jujutacular ^talk 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, nowhere used. -- Chjb (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a series of similar images from the same photoshoot circulating on the web. It is highly unlikely that the Flickr uploader is the owner of this image. DAJF (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Similar image'? Is this Flickr washing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puramyun31 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "Flickr washing" is supposed to mean, but this particular image is just one of several commercial images from an AKB48 photoshoot circulating on fansites on the web. You can see others from the series here. --DAJF (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr washing, or Commons:License laundering, refers to a situation where Flickr user claims to release a file under free license, but is in fact using the image without permission. MKFI (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Flickr washing Yann (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duplicated > Bandera de Balanegra.svg Erlenmeyer (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --ZooFari 00:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is a nude person. That would be okay if it weren't a bad shot, and if this didn't seem like someone just tried to take a bad naked photo of themselves in a car. No articles use it, and it has no educational value. RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your words can be seen how much you know of nude photography. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to german law and law of many other countries this picture is without any doubt not pornographic. It's an nude in artistic meaning, of good photographic quality. There is only one breast belonging to female sexual characteristics to see, accurately seen of female secondary sexual characteristics. My opinion: Not to delete! --Alupus (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Simply nude photography. No reason to delete. --Leyo 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Alupus and Leyo. Silly deletion request. --Rosenzweig δ 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep More nonsense as so often. All said already. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep ymmd --Don-kun (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep non valid deletion request, this type of request seem to come into vogue --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus. --ZooFari 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

92.246.34.60 18:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy  Keep as above. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy  Keep; no reason given, and it just passed a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept – No delete reason given, kept by unanimous decision! a×p_de^Hello! 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Personally I'm strictly against keeping tons of pornographic pictures, but even if this picture might offend some puritan readers it is definetly no pornography! a×p_de^Hello! 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this has gone through a deletion debate, but it is an unused and unuseful image. I don't know what it would illustrate, but we have other images in Category:Nude women inside automobiles, and they don't cut off the subject's head. There's no artistry or technical skill in the image, and I'm seeing little value besides "hey here's a naked woman". Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, I think we should look a little askance at nudes that don't have heads that aren't anatomical illustrations. They're more purient, more amateur, and they indicate that the model wasn't really comfortable with the photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No delete reason given --Ralf Roleček 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was; there's no educational use, therefore it's out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons no only the source for Wikimedia projects, Commons is a source of fee images. It's no out of scope. --Ralf Roleček 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SCOPE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Unused? Please see File usage again. Also, broad concensus decided to keep the file twice, then this file will not be deleted with weak reasons. Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page use generally doesn't count. This is not censorship; this is in accordance with COM:PENIS which says "(But this is in no way restricted to files containing nudity or sexual content; anything of poor quality may be deleted in favor of higher-quality replacements.)"--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The file is not of poor quality, so your penis metaphor does not apply. It's just another example of artistic nude photography, which is in scope. Also, I don't see any Commons regulation that requires nude images to include heads. --Rosenzweig τ 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per cmts. Alan ^(talk) 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality image, we have better images of nude women driving. Only use is buried in an old archive page on German Wikipedia Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep (and protect image). This has gone trough several DRs already. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a rationale, unless you can point me to a “lots of deletion requests = immunity” policy. And two years-old requests (not counting an invalid one with no rationale) are not “several”. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is amateur porn and fun to see how people do not provide any reasons for why it would be "realistically educationally useful".

I'm fine with a totally unrealistic view of what belongs on WMC – my concern is that it is inappropriately placed into category "Unidentified Volkswagen automobiles" where it does not belong. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If you have a concern about categorization which you consider inappropriate, you can edit to improve categorization. That is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Not high quality photo, but also not bad nor low quality. Adequate snapshot illustration of a nude woman in an automobile. We only have 4 images in this category, and this is the only one illustrating the concept while not showing a face. Unless one considers a bare breast to be inherently offensive, I'd call this inoffensive. No problem, no need to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If "we have better pictures" were an argument (it isn't), it wouldn't apply. It is the only image in its category that was taken from the top view. Commons is a database of images, from which re-users can choose and use the image that suits them best (in WM, instantcommons, or anywhere else on the web). It is censoring to try to dictate to the re-users what they should use. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t an indiscriminate collection of everything. Quality control isn’t censorship. Dronebogus (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Infrogmation. --Rosenzweig τ 08:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is wrong, bad quality, and now superceded. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Indeed, one OH group is missing. Let's hope there are no mistakes in the other uploads. --Leyo 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom Demmo (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image of an inactive user GeorgHH • talk   19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image of an inactive user GeorgHH • talk   19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't forget file:RM1.jpg also. DS (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not a picture of God! According to the Bible no-one has ever seen Him for God is Spirit 99.127.65.92 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a picture of Jesus because no-one knows exactly what He looks like. Therefore, when ever one post a picture picture and calls it God, they are simply worshipman a man and that is called "Idle worship" Jesus does not have color, for He is a God for all people. Have you ever thought about there are some people that are clear on the Bible, and when they see this black picture of so-called God, they will turn back because they do not want to serve a black God...Also there are many folk will not serve a yellow, red or white God, that is why God is a spirit so every one who desires to go to heaven they are free to serve and love Him...Just give this some thought,thanks 99.127.65.92 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY  Keep -- In Christianity this has been a dead issue since the Second Council of Nicea in 787 A.D. (over 1,200 years ago!). Such images will not be deleted because they offend your personal religious convictions. (By the way, it's not actually supposed to be a portrait of Jesus anyway...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Regardless of your views, this argumentation is not based upon Community polices or guidelines. --Mattes (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - no valid reason given to delete the image. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. No valid reason for deletion, depictions of God are perfectly fine if educational - as this clearly is. Fences and windows (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Vandal nom..???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy/snowball  Keep. I wouldn't call the nomination vandalism but it is obviously not based in any way on any policy, just the nominator's feelings. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is a detail from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling, depicting the creation, long before Jesus was born. This is Michelangelo's interpretation of God. Second, Michelangelo by NO MEANS painted God as a black man, and I am not sure where you got that this version of God looks black. If he was ANY race, he would have been Italian, since those were the models available to Michelangelo in the 16th Century. Third, and most important, if there is someone that is "clear" on the Bible, and that person has an issue with serving a "Black" God over a white, yellow or purple God, then they are most definitely not only "clear" on the Bible, but also completely ignorant, prejudice, and for the lack of a better word, stupid. In addition, Jesus DID (or perhaps a more accurate word would be does, since Jesus lives) have a colour. He was flesh and bone, and born to a Jewish mother in Bethlehem, so I doubt he was mad up of some translucent flesh that was completely neutral and devoid of race. I suggest in the future that you are very careful with the types of judgements and assumptions that you make. I appreciate that your concern was for the propagation of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is commendable, and may God bless you for that -- 05:07, 1 June 2011 User:Rubenguayasamin

•  Keep - Well, just to shock and horrify the un-named poster further: this representation of God does actually have the face of someone that Michelangelo (the painter of the picture) knew rather well. It is actually a portrait of the pope who had bullied the artist into painting the ceiling. Michelangelo is actually suggesting to us that the pope was acting as if he thought he was God. And because the painting was 70 feet above the floor, there was no way that it could be changed, once the scaffolding was removed.

Amandajm (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whoever is complaining about this should just get over it! it's just a picture! -- 10:06, 1 June 2011 71.195.190.40

•  Keep - U Mad? This is Wikipedia not some place to make postmodern statements about the immanent transcendental meaning of images, nor is it a 4chan-like trolling ground, get over it. Nixdorf (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion Yann (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a simple logo. The text possibly yes, the background no. Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird bonding, low quality, unused, any many alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete improperly positioned bonds Demmo (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird bonding, low quality, unused, any many alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete improperly positioned bonds Demmo (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a member of the Utah State senate, not a work of the U.S. federal government. Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Unfortunately, this one is not US Fed Govt. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logo Razghandi (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyvio Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Uploader request. Closing malformed DR. Yann (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DR cancelled. Yann (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

private photo, possibly non free Slfi (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unused personal image. Jujutacular ^talk 13:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reason=bad quality photo; author's request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk • contribs)

•  Keep Used on many different wikis. Quality is indeed quite poor, but we should find a replacement before this is considered for deletion. Jujutacular ^talk 13:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not notable person Slfi (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Appears to be out of scope, not in use. Jujutacular ^talk 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ilustration scanned from book, no evidence about authors permission Slfi (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete could be speedyed with {{subst:npd}} MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No permission Lymantria (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not notable artwork Slfi (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not useful. to blurry. 92.227.156.38 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Definitively.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xix 109.82.60.192 06:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain reason for deletion. Keith D (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason for deletion, this picture ist my own work--Fritzbruno (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Incorrect nomination. Useful photo George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no exif info; possibly a copyvio of [2] Moray An Par (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete could be speeied with {{copyvio|reason}} MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be coplanar, which is not the case (see e.g. here). In addition, poor resolution and not used anywhere. Leyo 11:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic map, mystification of the chechen nationalists. 91.77.47.190 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, most of the places didn't exist then. Also, Ossetians and Balkar are surely Caucasian peoples, despite having Indo-European or Turkic languages. Alaexis (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy  Delete - a clear and obvious hoax, in 1500, could not exist cities such as Grozny, Vladikavkaz, Mozdok and others. Master Shadow (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. I wanted to close it, but the uploader hadn't been notified until today! --Túrelio (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete pronto! Hekerui (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete It´s a hoax. According to the Chechen historian Amjad M. Jaimoukha from Oxford the Chechen settlement´s area in it´s biggest extension 1500 reached the Aktash river around the Daghestani city of Khasavyurt you will find on that map as "Khasav-Urt". The Chechens never reached the Caspian Sea.--92.231.101.112 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)P.S.: This time of biggest extension was not in 1500 it was around 1700! It´s true, there is a "Chechech Island" at the Caspian Sea and a village "Noviy Chechen" ("New Chechen"), but those names have no connection to a former presence of Chechens there. The old village "Chechen", which probably gave its name to the whole people in some languages (not in the Chechen language) became a Cossack village later. Those names at the Caspian Sea are Cossack names.--92.231.101.112 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Lymantria (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BW duplicate of color File:RiesenerAuto.jpg Annenkov (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture with unknown people JeanBono (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture with unknown people JeanBono (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture with unknown people JeanBono (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The main subject of this image is not woman. The school building itself can be considered to be within the project scope (for this file). High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

garbage image unused by any page DS (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spam image DS (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b/w Portrait of Italian painter, who died in 1961; claimed by uploader as own work from 2011; also found in this blog entry http://mamaloukas.blogspot.com/2009/12/mario-sironi.html from year 2009. Likely still copyrighted. Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

garbage image used only in a long-deleted hoax article on fr.wiki DS (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unfree - snitchted in the batch... Mattes (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by Choper145 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by User:Mmxx High Contrast (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad author - this image draw by Artyukh Igor (Артюх Игорь). No permission for free use. Art-top (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And also:
  • File:Артюх Игорь - Елена Чижикова.jpg
  • File:Артюх Ігор - портрет 2010.jpg
• --Art-top (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All files mentioned here have been deleted by User:Podzemnik High Contrast (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, potentially copyrighted judging from the title Zetawoof (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Self-)Promotion of a non-notable person. GeorgHH • talk   19:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looks like screenshot from movie Slfi (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Movie screenshot; insufficient source information High Contrast (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. The image is described as a "test" and appears to be the only upload by this user. There is no indication who these people are. The image is categorized in Category:No 8 Hose Toronto,a category pertaining to a fire hall in Toronto, which appears to bear no relation to the image. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Test upload. Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Belarus Lymantria (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The building appears to have very unique and recent design MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

فارسی: (missing text)

DO NOT DELETE

The "freedom of panorama" for Belarus and other republics of the former USSR are only restricted for commercial use. Non-commercial use (as in Wikipedia) is ok. --190.174.79.30 05:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from Commons:Licensing: "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted.". Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

wrong pic Naval Scene (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This DR is for the talk page, not the file, which is wrong. The reason given -- "wrong pic" -- is not a reason to delete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DE:

• Schlechte Bildqualität
• Darstellungsobjekt zwar zentral, aber hebt sich vom Hintergrund nicht gut ab
• viele unbeteiligte Personen abgebildet
• nicht enzyklopädiewürdig

EN:

• Poor image quality
• object central, but low contrasting from background
• lots of unengaded persons shown
• not condign for an encyclopedia

-- Chjb (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work of uploader. Most of his/her uploader were shot using a Canon G9. This one is from a Nikon D700 and carries the name "marta buso" in its EXIF data. Highly suspicious of copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Painting seems to be a work from first half of 20th century, thereby likely still copyrighted. No FOP exemption in Italy. Thereby a copyvio. De minimis? Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is quite clearly a photograph of a lecture hall rather then the painting which just happens to be on its wall. GiacomoReturned (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a picture of the room "Aula Baratto" located in our University Ca' Foscari of Venice on the second floor. The picture was made by us, the Public Relations Service of Ca' Foscari.--Gloyra (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but taking a photo of a copyrighted work of art is making a derivative that requires permission. Who is the painter of the painting on the wall? What are his/her life dates? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a photograph of a copyrighted work, the "work" just happens to be there - it is sideways-on, at an angle and not discernable - nomination for deletion on these grounds is ridiculous. You might just as well say that the man who made the new glass in the windows has copyright, that is just as a much a work of wonder and art. GiacomoReturned (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plain "glass" is not copyrighted, paintings are. And still no answer to the question, who is the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Palazzo Foscari#Frescoes --RexxS (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Italy has no freedom of panorama, so we needn't even look in that direction. The painting is clearly incidental to the photo. It is shown in its entirety (which is not an accident but seems to be a result of intentional composition of the photograph), but it is distorted by perspective, it is grainy, and it is not well lit. So it's bit of a borderline case of incidental use, and would still be OK as such under most jurisdictions. Unfortunately not in Italy. In Italy when the European Union's w:Copyright Directive was implemented, the exceptions for incidental use were removed. Unless this was done on the theory that existing Italian precedents based on earlier copyright law which also lacked such exceptions made it redundant, this would seem to imply that even clear cases of incidental use of a copyrighted work make a photograph a derived work.
  See section "Exceptions and limitations" here, and this and this for more detailed information. Hans Adler (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this input. Your "incidental use" likely is equivalent to what is discussed in Commons:De minimis. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. De minimis etc etc. As above. Kittybrewster (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Assuming that de minimis applies, since the photograph appears to include the fresco as an incidental element of its composition. Masking out the fresco would not significantly alter the impression of the Great Hall that the photograph imparts. --RexxS (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Painting is de minimis. Yann (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the use of this file is authorized by Mechanum Sverige AB (the source is their website) Niklas R (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Could be speedied with {{subst:npd}} MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the use of this file is authorized by the copyright holder. Pefp (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of fbi, just scanned in from a book, could be copyrighted Hold and wave (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Another random guess deletion request from Hold and wave. Published source says it is FBI. If you think that is incorrect, explain why. Infrogmation (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep This image came from a legitimate published source that attributed image to FBI. Why these deletion requests are going to Wiki Commons, I don't know. MYOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.8.237 (talk • contribs)

• Copyright violation, NY Post, the photo is credited to "Josh Williams" http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/what_in_your_wallet_XQ6G8U0zjQMED87JNufYvI#ixzz0W2InStKg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hold and wave (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 17:19, 5 June 2011 by Yann, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in scope? Commons is not Flickr -- it is not a private gallery. This artist does not appear to have an article in WP, or a listing at artnet.com. (Please forgive me if this has been debated before).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The picture is fine, but what are for that digital bars? Unusable, this way, for any scope not only Commons'.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Leute! Ich versteh kein Wort von dem da oben! Kene Ahnung, wieso ich meine Arbeit dieses am Rechner nachbearbeiteten Fotos hier nicht abbilden sollte. Kümmert Euch um Eure Sachen. Was soll es andauernd in den Dateien anderer rum zu suchen? Das Urheberrecht für diese Arbeit habe ich wohl ganz allein. Das nervt ohne Ende. --var (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt lese ich erst: Der da oben versteht ja überhaupt nichts. Der merkt überhaupt nicht, dass es sich nicht um ein Natur- oder Heimatfoto handelt, sondern um ein Kunstwerk. Meine Güte, da fällt einem nichts zu ein.--var (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The user (author) has uploaded many valuable photos, see Category:Files by Varus111, and – as several other users do – a few personal files for use on his userpage (the file is used on de.wikipedia atm). I've added {{Userpageimage}} therefore. Well, eventually the file could be used for a Wikibooks page on how to use "window grille" effects with some image editing software or so, dunno … --:bdk: 16:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question before us is exactly whether "The user (author) has uploaded many valuable photos" -- or not. It appears that he is not a notable artist and it is well established that we are not a private gallery for artists who are not themselves well known in the world beyond Commons. A few user page files are not the issue, the issue is all the rest of his uploads, of which this is an example.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If he uses it on his wikipage ... anyway, for the artist, the picture is far better without that bars. I'm not an artist, though, as a very small minority of art-buyers are. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, tell me, what is an "notable artist" ? Is an artist notable, if you think so? Who must know an artist, so that he is "notable"? How many expositions must have an artist, so that he is "notable"? Please give me the definition of a "notable artist", and than we will look all over the articles in wiki. Thats a lot of work for you. We can say, that it is too many work. You will not manage it. Whats your interest to start at my pictures? Is there nothing else to do for you, something more important perhaps? --217.87.51.57 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, start with the facts I set forth above --that Varus111 has no listing at ArtNet.com, which means that his or her work has not been sold at any major auction. Although Varus111 has a user page on WP:DE, there is no article about the artist on any WP. A Google search does not turn up any indication of notability, indeed it has only around 1,000 hits altogether. The fact that there may be other artists whose images should not be on Commons is not relevant. This discussion is about Varus111.

I should also add that 217.87.51.57 says "my pictures" above. This suggests that 217.87.51.57 is actually User:Varus111. If that is correct, then I must tell you that it is serious violation of our policy to make comments at a Deletion Request using two different names.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nochmal: Ich versteh wirklich kaum noch was. Ich habe unterschiedliche Namen benutzt, oder was? Natürlich heiße ich nicht varus111, oder glaubt das hier jemand. Die Bilder und Fotos sind unter meinem richtigen Namen veröffentlicht: Uwe Gehring. Ist doch wohl logisch. Das verheimliche ich ja auch nicht. Ich grüße auf meiner Seite ja auch als Uwe Gehring. Was geht hier eigentlich ab? Soll ich meine Seiten jetzt umbennenen auf Uwe Gehring. Wo ist eigentlich das Problem? Weil da Gitterstäbe auf dem Foto eingefügt sind? Ich sach mal: Macht, was Ihr wollt. Macht Ihr ja sowieso. Ich brauche diese Plattform nicht, um mich zu ärgern, und das passiert immer wieder. Da stecke ich meine Arbeit lieber in andere Projekte. Nur - wenn Ihr das hier zur Spielwiese von Neurotikern macht, dann wird das ganze unter gehen, früher oder später. Grüße --217.87.51.57 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn du tatsächlich Varus111 bist, warum schreibst du als IP und loggst dich nicht ein? Und warum antwortest du nur auf deutsch, obwohl du en-2 angegeben hast? Du brauchst mit diesem LA nicht einverstanden zu sein, das würde auch niemand erwarten. Die Mitdiskutanten zu diffamieren ist aber ebenso unangemessen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, at least as a userpageimage it is fine. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as Túrelio. Yann (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not published under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license as claimed with this upload. Takeing down this logo has been requrested at User_talk:Rickazio#logo University of Groningen. Two questions: 1) Does the logo quialify for copyright protection? The main focus of this question is of course the shield in the left part of the logo, per Commons:Coats_of_Arms#Copyright_on_the_representation I must assume a copyright protection on at least the representation. 2) Why do we have this trashy jpg file? Better fileformats are available at the university website. So if we come to the conclusion that this file is public domain or at least possible to upload under fair use at some Wikipedia project locall we should use a better file format. Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:DragonflySixtyseven tagged this image as "copyvio" on 2011-05-30T14:49:10 with this reason: "this is a photo of the descriptive placard that accompanies the museum's display of millennia-old artifacts. Photos of the artifacts = good, photo of the card = bad." Saibo (Δ) 14:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact this image contains text of other authors. However, I think it is not as much text to be eligible for copyright (below threshold of originality). These are just facts (I guess - cannot read this language) and not even sentences. Could be okay with {{PD-text}} - see the explanation in the template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a great photo but it describes the image and that is its purpose, with much less effort than a multi-language text notation - Leonard G. (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by Example (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and File:WTR CFTND Main.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Facebook. No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete New upload of previously deleted content. You must use Commons:Undeletion requests and not just reupload deleted images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. d'Aulnis died in 1937, it's highly unlikely that this image is "Own work". Uploader admits on her nl:wiki talk page that the image was found in a mysterious "brown envelope". Wutsje (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NO, Mutsje, you are misquoting me, the image is not from the brown enveloppe, but from a photobook. The original picture shows the 2 brothers, Willem and George. The picture is in a photobook owned by Louis d'Aulnis, son of George. Louis let me make a picture of that photograph, and i cut Willem out of that picture, As the original picture is made in 1912 it is PD-old. 77.162.13.83 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Since we don't know who the photographer was or when he died, we cannot keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colllage of image with invalid licensing. Three of the images are {{Argentina}}, so we can't combine them into a GFDL/CC image. Damiens.rf 16:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which images are problematic? Hohum (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know that too! --Necessary Evil (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would I, I created the montage and all, I repeat all, of the images were PD on wikipedia. 192.91.173.41 09:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually this image File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg was meant, which has somewhat conflicting license tags. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two others are File:Argetina's 1982 ruling Junta.jpg and File:Marines surrender at Government House.jpg. --|EPO| ^da: 09:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and kept. There is no current challenge to its licensing, so I see no basis for a problem with it. Hohum (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the point. Since the collage was created, editors have added a Not-PD-US-URAA tag to these three images. I can't tell if they are valid or not since the URAA confuses the hell out of me. Hohum (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't created with a GFDL license, it was created with a {{PD-AR-PHOTO}} tag, I may have screwed up the license tag when I transferred it to commons. Are you just going to delete this, without notifying all of the wikipedias that use this image? Wee Curry Monster (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely that Alexander Binder took the photo. It is Ross-Card No. 6075, which was published after 1931, Binder died in Febr. 1929; the sole signature "Binder." belongs to "Atelier Binder" which was lead by the heirs of Alexander Binder; photographer was most likely Hubs Flöter who died in the 1970s. Paulae (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful author and license - site address in image. Art-top (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked other contribs by the uploader - nuke all per duck test. For example, "their" low-res photos of the uk:Мерефо-Херсонський міст, uploaded on May 20-21 this year, appear all over the web ([3], [4] etc.). No trust. NVO (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of non-free image: http://foto.mail.ru/mail/vladimir-sadykov/_blogs/173.html - bad author, unconfirmed license. Art-top (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brudnopis Maciej Osmulski (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of the monitor. The original photo is de minimis, this is not longer de minimis. Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

already in the original work ed kowalczyk was the centre of the image (see also image name and description). --JD {æ} 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work Razghandi (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" is not a good reason. -Eh kia (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It has an AFP watermark at the right side of its bottom. (+ No metadata + low resolution) --Razghandi (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work Razghandi (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author was not dead 70 years ago Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voir aussi Commons:Bistro#Auguste Seysses. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 23:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work Razghandi (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work Razghandi (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work Razghandi (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be a derivative work and a document that fall out of scope. Mys 721tx (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, words match en:New International Version which is copyright en:Zondervan in the US. A PD version will be just as good. No comment on "scope" ;(( NVO (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Perhaps this is a fair use image? --Leoboudv (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Here is the copyright notice:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

Since the quote is 100% of the words in the work in which they are quoted -- the photo -- they are an infringement.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from the 1970s, previously published elsewhere on the web (in a different scan [5]), no evidence for permission HaeB (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, re-upload of previously deleted file, almost certainly a copyright vio. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Actually, that is not the case. The name has been used three times. The first was an automobile and the problem was that the photo was not licensed. The second (DR above) was an image of the NIV, a copyrighted version of the Bible. This one is an image of a band. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom. Photo of British rock band en:Genesis (band) (130 million albums sold), grabbed somewhere from Internet. Gunnex (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio --Krd 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by File:498th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron - F-106s.jpg Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Next time, please upload the new version over the old one -- saves much time for several people.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looks like source is web (see description) Slfi (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure, it's listed as "own work" and contains full metadata. --Ponyo (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by Tassis (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by png version File:14th Weapons Squadron - Emblem.png Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the old file and replace it with the new one. --High Contrast (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected derivative work of the symbol depicted on the flag. Need to demonstrate that the coat of arms is public domain and that the arrangement of symbols is ineligible for copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The small COA included is the COA of Vallecas, and I believe there are no restrictions on photographing COAs of municipalities of Spain (or districts of Madrid, in this case).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Español: No, no. No es el escudo del municipio de Vallecas, es el escudo del equipo de fútbol Rayo Vallecano de Madrid Sociedad Anónima Deportiva [6] (que casualmente incluye un pequeño escudo del municipio).

--. HombreDHojalata.^talk 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, that's what I meant with "small COA included". My question is, what exactly on that image is copyrightable?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respuesta: El escudo del equipo de fútbol Rayo Vallecano. ¿O es que los escudos de los equipos de fútbol no están protegidos por copyright?--. HombreDHojalata.^talk 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are not, depending on how simple they are. This one is text, a lightening bolt and a COA which I believe to be on public domain (Vallecas district), possibly nothing there is copyrightable.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks--. HombreDHojalata.^talk 12:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The small included COA is DM Jcb (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:StoreBG.jpg
• Image:StoreBG2.jpg
• Image:StoreBG1.jpg
• Image:Beef Jerky.jpg
• Image:Gardening eBook.jpg
• Image:Cheesecake eBook.jpg
• Image:Ultimate Collection of eBooks.jpg
• Image:Government Grants.jpg

Promotional images of not notable eBooks --Slfi (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete They can go, for me also.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Powers (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per request - Jcb (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in U.A.E, Primary focus is on tower ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed - file was restored recently by community consensus, please don't feel free to ignore that - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to restore was extremely weak, and didn't take into account the fact that this image is twice as tall as it needs to be to capture the non-Burj buildings in their entireties. The camera was clearly tilted upwars expressly to capture the entire Burj Dubai. Powers (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - this is disrupting - Jcb (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - Speedy - Primary focus is on the burj khalifa, a copyrighted subject and a full size crop also counts......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No valid reason for speedy deletion has been provided. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The camera was tilted upwards to capture the entire skyline? What's the problem with that? You can discuss the freedom of panorama, it's OK, but I can't find a reason to consider that the full skyline is "less legal" than part of it. Greetings --3coma14 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has to do with the claim that the photo is not focused on the Burj Dubai. But that tower is in the middle of the photo and the photo is clearly framed to capture the entire tower. Powers (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...is clearly framed to capture the entire tower... - of course, because would be ugly to have the picture of a skyline, with only the lower part of one of the buildings on it. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, as per Jcb. Yann (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama is not allowed in U.A.E, This picture is re-nominated for deletion due to the effects of this law, and it doesn't allow any photographer to take the picture of the structure and put it here... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image clearly pass the de minimis (An example shown here)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy  Keep; issue already discussed at DR and UDR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - While I dislike the way this has been handled with repeated DRs, I do agree with the points Powers and Captain have made - the image is of the Burj, it is framed to be of the Burj, the Burj is the dominating aspect of this image, and therefore it CANNOT be de minimis. Our de minimis guidelines say that something is acceptable if its removal would not detract from the image - that is not the case here, remove the Burj and you are left with a photo of acres of sky with a few piddling little buildings at the bottom. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy  Keep - per previous DRs and also because the community should not give space to abuse like this renomination - Jcb (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-03#File:Burj_Dubai.JPG_to_undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus at that undeletion discussion was extremely weak. Having three people participate (one of whom offered a completely bogus reason for undeletion) should in no way preclude additional deletion requests. Powers (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question to those who want to keep this file: is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates wrong then? i can hardly think of an applicable exception (apparently not de minimis, or does U.A.E. copyright law have some wider interpretation of this clause than the U.S. or Germany/France/U.K.?). —Pill (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was discussed deeply before and kept the FOP status remain unchanged with some added information of law directly from government website..Moreover the UDR was not having a consensus and it was purely an admins decision.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - I have no opinion on this, but if the image gets deleted in the end, please split it in two and upload the views from each side of the building, at least the view to the right provides a useful picture of the city.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This would qualify for DM if you just cropped out the top of the Burj so it's not clearly framed to be a picture of the Burj, though it would also need renaming. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've uploaded a cropped version of this picture, hopefully I haven't cropped too much/too less. I've also done a small curves adjust.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - Per my analysis here that re-nomination was justified. If this is de minimis, then one has to start asking what isn't de minimis. CT Cooper · talk 22:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete : per COM:FOP de minimis does not apply in this case. Camera angle is obviously for the tower, name of the article is also incorrect for claiming a de minimis exception. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted User:CT Cooper says it best.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it hurts ladies, it is unethical, possible offensive 69.104.53.27 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons is not censored. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong  Keep. No reason to delete. --Crt (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - The image is informative, non-erotic (clinical), and in-use on the Finnish Wikipedia. Per Commons:Project scope#Censorship: "[A] lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be 'child-friendly' or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons." I'm not sure how "unethical" comes into play... Black Falcon (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the woman agreed to release this (the hand is clearly not her's), or even who made it, and supposed author has been banned. It is also the only image uploader has uploaded, which is suspicious. Derivatives of the image should be deleted as well. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In use in finish wikipedia, also its stated that the author of this image is the uploaded so i dont see what is the doubt about authorship, also the fact that the author was banned is irrelevant, also i dont see any proofs that the hand are not of the woman. Tm (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the hand of the woman, you can see it enters frame from the left side, yet it is a left hand. It should be a right hand if it was her own. Simple logic. Anyway, all circumstances around the image are suspicious, as outlined above. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Medical image, the subject's identity cannot be known. Yann (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violations given the varying style, quality, and resolution of the user's uploads; the number of cameras used; and the uploader's tendency of uploading files found around the Internet with false authorship claims.

• File:陈第墓.jpg
• File:长门炮台1.jpg
• File:青芝山泉水.jpg
• File:青芝山摩崖题刻.jpg
• File:猴抱桃.jpg
• File:连江县尚德中学校园.jpg
• File:连江实验小学大门.jpg
• File:2008111045924537.jpg
• File:敖江.jpg
• File:连江县全景图.jpg
• File:Mjuyangbin.JPG

—LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative Work of copyrighted label      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels Jcb (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably invalid PD claim. Author unknown, but not sure if there has been enough research to find the author Effeietsanders (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy with searching for the name of the author. Please don't delete this file too quick please. Trijnstel (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm all fine with waiting a bit, there's no hurry involved) Effeietsanders (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1925 US work and thus is not yet public domain in its home country Prosfilaes (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...unless it was unpublished and/or unregistered by the artist, in which case you go by life + 70.[7] Pre-1923 is the relevant date for publication only, not for creation of the work. Postdlf (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of no way to prove that a painting wasn't legally published, given that most of them were probably published in books and covered by that copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I know of no presumption on Commons that a work was published. Effectively, what you're saying would eliminate the application of the life+70 rule to any work of art made by basically any 20th century American, because once again when the work was create1d (1915 or 1925) is not necessarily when it was published, if it was in fact published: you would have to nominate for deletion all works by Demuth that you could not prove were published first before 1923, on the presumption that they may have been first published in or after 1923. If that is to be Commons policy, then so be it, but it isn't policy now as far as I am aware. So absent evidence that another rule governs this work, the death age should control here. Postdlf (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the life+70 rule hardly applies to any work of art made by any 20th century American. Functionally, we've assumed that US paintings were published when they were created; you're asking us to assume that these paintings were never published, on no evidence at all. I don't know what we should assume, but we can't assume whatever's most convenient for us in a particular case. And what Policy says is that we need to know that for sure whether something is out of copyright or not, not that we should assume that something is out of copyright if we can't prove otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The death date is taken as proof unless we have reason to think a publication rule applies to a particular work. Given that Commons requires that a file be in the public domain in the U.S. as well as the country of origin, the publication assumption you're arguing for would pull the rug out from the work of non-American creators as well. Postdlf (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you cite policy that says we can assume that works are unpublished? Certainly it has not been accepted as a deletion reason that a work was in the copyright in the US when it was PD in its source country. At such point that Commons decides to follow the law, it seems silly not to actually follow the law and assume that works are always unpublished.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And contrary to your claim, it's provable that this was published prior to 2002; this Google Books link shows the painting in Education and politics in the 1990s: conflict or consensus? by Denis Lawton, page 196, 1992.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That establishes that it was published in the UK. Which means that the term is life+70 (scroll down to "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" here). Postdlf (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • That doesn't establish at all that it was first published in the UK; all that shows is that it was published in the UK at one point, probably long after its first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as the works by Charles Demuth were constantly published since his lifetime until now. The copyrights were usually registered (look here), and in at least one case even renewed (example). I haven't found any information when exactly this painting was published first, nor whether it was renewed – but it is a possibility. In these cases, we would have a protection of 95 years after the publication. The problem is here that we have no proof which allows us to safely keep this file as it is hard all books which have possibly published this artwork. Some of them name Charles Demuth in their titles, but not all do this. Consequently, we have to delete it per our precautionary principle. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Walt Disney Company.svg

File:Logo WaltDisneyCo.svg

File:The Walt Disney Company.png

I believe this meets the threshold of originality, because the Disney logo is not just a simple typeface. I believe this should be deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I just added a few more logos that also contain variants of "Walt Disney". I believe the stylized "Walt Disney" is stylized enough to not be considered eligible under {{PD-textlogo}}. Killiondude (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Harej (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Calligraphy falls under PD-text, and this logo is not as elaborate as calligraphy. It's merely letters in a fancy font, which is the definition of PD-text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Well yes the Walt Disney logo is not as simple as Yamaha logo.svg for example. However, it's still plane text which is not really creative. Just using a different font in (eg) Microsoft Word does not make a logo creative, does it? If you tipe in "YAHAMA" in MC Word with Times New Roman as typeface it is not eligible for copyright. If you would change the typeface to Brush Script MT (or some other typeface which is creative at the same rate) it wouldn't be ineligible for copyright any longer. I actually don't think that this make that much sense. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What font is the Disney logo in then? Killiondude (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it's irrelevant. The US copyright office has declared calligraphy to be PD-text. Writing is simply not copyrightable. Secondly, this page calls it Walt Disney Script and offers it as a free download.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the font download is irrelevant because anybody can make a font of copyrighted material and allow it to be downloaded free. But I was given this link and shown that the information in there says that "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" or ineligible for copyright, so I withdraw this nomination. Killiondude (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn/Kept. Killiondude (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a search of US Copyright Office records, the Disney Channel logo is copyrighted in the US. The registration number is VAu000575197 and may be found by visiting http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First and searching for that number. AussieLegend (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I don't think that's this logo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's really a valid argument for keeping since you can't be sure that the logo mentinioned isn't this one. The point is that there is some doubt. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This logo has been around since well before 2002, which is given as the date of creation by the record you cite, so the logo in question is clearly different from what you're talking about. Precedent is clear that text in different typefaces is not copyrightable just because of the typeface, so the only way that a piece of text can be a copyvio is if the text is significant enough to be beyond de minimis — and surely the two words "Disney Channel" cannot be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The date of registration is really a non-issue since the register just provides the last date that the logo was registered. It may well have been registered before then and re-registered in 2002 for some administrative purposes. That happens all the time. Since, according to the register, "Disney Channel" is copyrighted the argument that the words can't be copyrighted doesn't hold water. As I indicated above, the point is that there is some doubt and therefore we need unassailable evidence that the Disney Channel logo that is copyrighted is not this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're a bit confused. Maybe you misspoke, but you say "the argument that the words can't be copyrighted doesn't hold water"; well, it's indisputable that the words "Disney Channel", in the abstract, can't be copyrighted.[8] So all you're left with is whether this particular logo presents those words in a copyrightable manner. And the above "keep" commenters are correct in noting that this file is nothing but typeface, and correct in noting that under U.S. copyright law that pure typeface cannot be copyrighted (not to mention that Commons policy judges this to be the case). You don't know, and have no reason to believe, that the register entry you found applies to the logo represented by this file. Its title is "Disney Channel," but there's nothing to indicate that the registered logo consists of nothing but those words, let alone this particular representation of those words; there is no description of what the logo looks like. You'll have to do better than that to establish doubt here, particularly where Commons policy and our understanding of the law is contrary to the position you're trying to argue. Postdlf (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other deletion discussions the requirement seems to generally be proving proof that the file is free, not that it isn't free. Here we have a US government source saying the Disney Channel logo is copyrighted, and therefore not free. We really need proof that this Disney Channel logo is not copyrighted. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have proof; the Copyright Office has clearly said that it doesn't register things like this for copyright. So obviously, this is something else that was registered for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a US government source saying that a Disney Channel logo is copyrighted. And we have every reason to believe it's something like this or this rather than the one in this file. Postdlf (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't know for sure what the logo that is copyrighted actually is, both of these comments are speculative. You need to prove what the copyrighted logo is in order to prove that this is not it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this last comment, since you can't prove it's not copyrighted. It's not speculation to know the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace This is off-topic but the "y" is cut off so I say someone replaces the image with one where the y is full. --DisneyFriends (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - {{PD-textlogo}} - Jcb (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio, source = picture from Internet Gumruch (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:ATPsynthase labelled.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This process of deletion nomination is quite confusing, especially with the bot. I am looking at the Commons page containing the png and the entry and upload appears okay. So what's this timestamp question? The source indicated is "Modified version of PDB image". The only modifications to the original image are an arrow around the 'Axle' region indicating direction of rotation and an almost vertical arrow with 'H⁺' at its beginning atop. The modifier "Wiseman25 (talk | contribs)" apparently added these before the upload at 18:41, 20 February 2008.

I sent an email to the contact indicated for the RCSB PDB regarding the unmodified image and received the following reply, "Data and images contained in the RCSB PDB are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. Our policies and citation information are available at: http://www.pdb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html. Please see in particular the information regarding Molecule of the Month images. Sincerely, Rachel Green, kramer@rcsb.rutgers.edu."

Please clarify the 'timestamp' issue as apparently the original uploader who modified the image and released it with, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers." either may not know where to respond to the bot or may no longer be at wikipedia. I have inserted the modified image on the wikipedia page, url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ATPase_genes, and would like to keep it in use there.

 Keep No apparent valid reason for deletion. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --ZooFari 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]