Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/23

Error. Meant to create a category. Sorry. Jennie Matthews 97 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 03:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User request. FDMS (WP: en, de) 01:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE, unused file. 레비Revi 03:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete first image is low quality facebook style selfie, of no use to project. second is undoubtedly a copyvio.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: speedy deleted Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False authorship claims - none of those single photographs is the uploader's own work nor is the collage High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: promotional out of scope anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Vandalism/out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider this is a press anonymous photo, and applies 70 years after publication, it enters in public domain in France in 1999, and so isn't in public domain in US before 2024. Dereckson (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Is this a special case? Because there are thousands of images in the same category: Category:Agence Meurisse. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewed every of the 24 portraits used on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Litte 20e 24 portraits nb carré.jpg.

But indeed these press photos are problematic: they have been given at BNF for archive, and BNF has published them without photographer name information, so we have no mean to know if there are in public domain or not.

Now, I see in the category, Henri-Louis Meurisse (1872-1935) were himself a press photographer, but if I look File:Académie Mallarmé 1937.jpg, a photo taken after his death, he worked with other photographers.

I don't know what to do in this case. Treat them as anonymous maybe if they are really no record, or see with BNF if they have more information. For the URAA, I checked again the upload dates, this is just before 2012-03-01 (in February 2012), so we can keep them it seems. --Dereckson (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Agence Meurisse files have been uploaded before the 2012-03-01, and so are okay as PD-EU-Anonymous, Not-PD-US-URAA files. Dereckson (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not-PD-US-URAA tagging to queue for later deletion processing. The community has no consensus to delete in an hurry such files uploaded before the 2012-03-01, but has decided on Commons:Requests for comment/PD review to create a project Commons:WikiProject Public Domain to handle such issues. This project is still planning the cleaning operation at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. The current proposal contains a local wiki notification phase, and so it's not appropriated to currently process this DR, but more appropriated to handle this file with every other one during the URAA cleaning operation. --Dereckson (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cropped version of this image is being used under fair use claim on the English Wikipedia. Jespinos (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Henxter as no license. Well, there is a CC license. But thats unlikely own work of the uploader as stated, as the title indicates it was made 1914. JuTa 00:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken in 1952 but we don't know when the photographer died. Secondly the Rockefeller Archive Center says here that its intellectual property is "Copyright © The Rockefeller Archive Center. All rights reserved." This may be a case for a speedy delete or a clear copyright violation. Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No context or significance whatsoever, and it's not currently being used in any articles. Skarz (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: "Baustellenfoto" - should be usabel for educational purposes High Contrast (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File is a collage which fails to identify the source works and their copyrights. Werieth (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified the source works and their copyrights. Amitabho (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now provided with source images there are at least 7 copyright violations and one invalid source file. Werieth (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority of these are irreplaceable, and in fact several of them were used in the article which this collage replaces. Would you kindly identify which pictures specifically are fair use violations and which one is invalid? I will be glad to re-upload locally on Wikipedia if these are unconscionable. Amitabho (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wether the file is here on commons or en.wikipedia the file is unacceptable and will be deleted. Werieth (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced all the files I could find flaws with. Are there any that I have missed? Amitabho (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Copyvio images replaced. I've deleted all but the last revision. INeverCry 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from deleted files, non-free images. Kmzayeem (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that two of the red-linked files actually are hosted on English Wikipedia, so only two files are deleted non-free files. That said, we can't keep this as long as at least one of the files is non-free. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete In general i know the benefits of collages, but collage like effect can be achieved on wikis through other methods. Its best that individual wikis handle them. Add to that some copyvio images in between a couple of dozen such images, i am always gonna vote for deletion for precaution. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from deleted images, following more DRs are open. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Madhusudan Dutt.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahasvetadevi.jpg

 Deleted, 7 red links. Taivo (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of fair use material with wrong license. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. A.Savin 23:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already made clear that this is a pictural quote from a video, the image itself is a cropped part of a single frame. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) 23:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand your objection. Screenshots of fair-used video sequences are fair-use as well. Maybe COM:Screenshots could help. --A.Savin 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zusatzklausel "Verwendung nur mit Wasserzeichen des Stadtarchivs!" ist nicht vereinbar mit CC BY-SA 3.0 Jergen (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: Additonal clause "Verwendung nur mit Wasserzeichen des Stadtarchivs!" (= Usage only with watermark of the municipal archives!) is inconsistent with CC BY-SA 3.0. --Jergen (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Zusatzklausel removed, now normal attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bergfried_der_Wartburg_1938.jpg&curid=30301086&diff=112788177&oldid=112448285 Raymond 16:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2D copying Odessey (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because i habe ad it by mistake Zitrone48 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because i habe ad it by mistake 212.89.218.172 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Modèle moléculaire 3D de Bétanine as indicated, but just empty. Either delete or move the file. Leyo 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Presumably replaced by (non-broken) file:MoléculeBétanine.png. Couldn't this file have gone via speedy as broken image? DMacks (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The file is in use. However, I don't know if it is supposed to be black in these pages as I cannot read them. --Leyo 15:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  According to translate.google, fi:Keskustelu ohjeesta:Kuvien lisääminen appears to be discussing that the image appears blank. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized, unused picture. The commons is not a personal web host. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPG version uploaded at File:Carlos Logan 25-08-2008 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related: See also (by this uploader) File:Caràtula de Tasta'm.jpeg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Putes i consentits.jpeg. Gunnex (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an 1932 anonymous photo, it entered in France in public domain in 2003, ie after 1996. In this case it only enters in US public domain in 2028. But we don't have element this photo is anonymous. Dereckson (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: Entered PD in 1990: 1932 + 58. Yann (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing exif by 2-upload-user Mikalo (talk · contributions · Statistics) = 1x copyvio. Gunnex (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2D copying Odessey (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2D copying Odessey (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Already deleted as a copyvio. küñall (nütramyen) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by Polarlys High Contrast (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2043 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me. Wassermann 28 December 2013.

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2025 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2022 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2022 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2020 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2019 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2018 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2021 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2028 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2030 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2029 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2025 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2069 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2078 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2024 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing: This likely isn't free in its country of origin, given the whole "no photos at night" rule. Even then, the image has a shoddy file description history. Blurpeace 06:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete - I made a mistake in naming this file (it is actually a portrait of George Collyer) Daderot (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You can rename... see Help:Rename for more info. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that all these pics are "own works" 91.66.153.214 12:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad description. Perhaps a Death Metal Band ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMhK_4ueLlg from ? 91.66.153.214 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uploader's family, unused 91.66.153.214 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the uploader's only image from this webpage and there is no OTRS evidence that the web page owner gave permission for the use of this image...which is not even in use anywhere. It is safer to delete in this case. Leoboudv (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects in the picture are not of any particular (known) notability. The picture is not of encyclopedic value either. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 17:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per consensus above: out of scope High Contrast (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncatorgized picture. The commons is not a personal web host. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not 50 years old so still copyright. Sreejith K (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2D copying Odessey (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low res scan uploaded as "own work", almost certainly more copyvio from user Ez zaki, see User talk:Ez zaki Holyoke, mass (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized picture, quite possibly of the uploader. While a small number of personal pictures for use in userpages is tolerated, it has been almost 2 years since the upload. I really doubt it will ever be used. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded by me by mistake. — Draceane diskuse 15:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was uploaded on December 12, 2013 from a facebook account but there is no evidence of any permission anywhere. The uploader only has 5 images on Commons--all of the same person. Leoboudv (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture has been used in here before. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern stamps of N.Z. are still copyright. Licence appears to be wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative work; scan (of a textbook?) with text and arrows added. Holyoke, mass (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Savh^ñ 09:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by Steinsplitter High Contrast (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taken "during the 1978 FIFA World Cup" [in Argentina], licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, but {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} until (+95 years) 2074. Gunnex (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative; headshot is taken from non-PD photograph, see large family of similar deleted pages at User talk:Ez zaki Holyoke, mass (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An svg version of this file is now available Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no need to keep it anymore High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2D copying Odessey (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, but presumably copyrighted. --ghouston (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tranferred from enwiki in 02.2013, uploaded at enwiki on 04.2009 by User:Marandi73 who (en:User:Marandi73: "I'm a big fan of Lucia Mendez (...)) got all local uploads deleted via copyvio in 2009. See also http://amore.4bb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=22&p=16 (16.02.2008) = http://ib1.keep4u.ru/s/080216/1e/1eb70f9b38fb8a136e.jpg (see file path: uploaded on 16.02.2008). Unlikely own work. Gunnex (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: likely copyvio Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader had AmigoRaúl's permission to use this picture, he/she should have submitted an OTRS permission ticket. Sinc this image is of very low resolution and is not used anywhere on any wikimedia project, it may be preferable for Commons to delete it. Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing exif, per COM:PRP: 6 uploads = 5x copyvios Gunnex (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Unused personal image. INeverCry 01:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope.Érico Wouters ^msg 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleted again as per nomination. --High Contrast (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPG version uploaded at File:Paul Black 25-08-2008 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my image, and i believe its a violation of copyright for an architectural element of a memorial built after 1978, and also a public display of a copyrighted work of poetry written after 1923. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Model of the European Space Agency Corot satellite. No evidence of lack of copyright for this model. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Model of the SOHO satellite, probably created by the European Space Agency. No evidence of lack of copyright for this model. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized image. Don't see any educational use. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, Miró died in 1983. Alinea (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious licensing, published after URAA date CourtlyHades296 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete - I made a mistake in naming this file (It is actually a portrait of Erastus Corning) Daderot (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You can rename... see Help:Rename for more info. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this file is Own work work. Seems to be copyrighted. 레비Revi 03:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Besides likely out of scope High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question "own work". Google shows larger image. See http://ppcdn.500px.org/52644862/af2f435d0ab96764095f9098f444040a09129a5b/5.jpg Other indications: the only image uploaded by the user an no meta data Wouter (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality photo of an unidentified male. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, low quality personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect coat of arms. The supporters should be red. These are also drawn in a non-heraldic style. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the crown isn't in heraldic correct style. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

watermarked image has self promotion, cannot be removed. Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on pl.wiki the date of death of the author is unknown but he was alive in 1941. AFAIK the assumed date of death for those that went missing during the war is 1945 so the image is not PD. Plushy (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per nom and it has a bad quality. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not using in any article. Was used in Angle trisection but turns out to be an incorrect provement. DreamLiner (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After identifying around 15 uploads (all in 09.2013) as copyvio: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (missing/inconsistent exif/resolutions etc.) so these ones - per COM:PRP can't be believed either. All files (as the copyvio) most likely cropped from unknown source.

• File:RicharRuiz1.jpg
• File:LuisMendoza1.jpg
• File:AngelHernandez1.jpg
• File:ElvisMartinez1.jpg
• File:Manuel Plasencia1.JPG
• File:LeoVielma1.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Varilla Gonzalez.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Ruberth Moran.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Ricardo Lunari.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Norman Cabrera.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Oscar Villarreal.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Oswaldo Mackenzie.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Mauricio Romero.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Nicolas Nuñez.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Luciano Ursino.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Luis Robinson Renteria.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Juan Marcarie.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Juan Cruz Gill.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Javier Villafraz.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Giacomo Di Giorgi.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Gaston de los Santos.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Hector Pablo Bidoglio.jpg
• File:Jugadores. DT Santiago Sachi Escobar.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Dayron Perez.jpg
• File:Jugadores. Bryan Aldave.jpg
• File:Nelson Zelaya.jpg
• File:Paton Gonzalez.jpg
• File:Efrain Viafara.jpg
• File:Angelo Peña.jpg
• File:RiascosEstuMerida.jpg
• File:GianMaldonadoEUROLOBO.jpg
• File:71b.jpg

Gunnex (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nomination High Contrast (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files from English wikipedia, which has no source. (It says file is from photobucket.com, but not individual files.)

• File:Gerry O'Connor 2013.jpg
• File:Eamonn Campbell 2013.jpg
• File:Patsy Watchorn 2013.jpg
• File:Sean Cannon 2013.jpg

레비Revi 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr link was given, but it is uploaded yesterday, so I think link is flickrwashing. --레비Revi 08:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: It may be a flickrwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:FLICKRWASHING; original version High Contrast (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• File:Semntal.jpg
• File:Herford1.jpg
• File:Gersi.jpg
• File:Aaaaa1.jpg
• File:1cow.jpg
• File:Frezean.jpg
• File:Cow8.jpg
• File:Cow7.jpg
• File:Cow6.jpg
• File:Cow4.jpg
• File:Cow5.jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name. Correct name: Category:Nederlands Letterkundig Museum Vysotsky (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: a botched attempt to create a category Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of chocolates - logos etc: derivative work. Once deleted, please protect filename. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized, essentially unused (the one link doesn't count IMHO since it is just a list of uncategorized pictures). I really tried to see how this could be educationally useful and came up with nothing. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as out of scope, very low resolution photo of a generic office space. No practical way we could obtain further information about the photo to make the illustration more specific. Blurpeace 05:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originating Flickr account looks like a compiler of Real Madrid-related photos and not the original photographer. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE I think that the imagine should be kept as it look like it is by the photographer. If you look at his album, only this imagine is under the Attribution License, the other are All Rights Reserved License. If you look at the other imagine under All Rights Reserved License, that are imagines that are used in media (Google), therefore these are not his/her and thats why he has used it under the All Rights Reserved License. This one is under the Attribution License and is not used by media (as I know, never seen it on media) and maybe it is the only imagine by the photographer. However, we shouldnt remove it as we dont have any proof that it is not a original imagine by the photographer, and that it is a good contribution for the article it is used on. -SideMaster

DONT DELETE It is a imagine by the photographer because it is the only imagine that have his logo (SoyMadridista) on it. The other imagines on his album dont have it and thats why they are under the All Rights Reserved License. This one is his only imagine under the Attribution License with his logo on it. Keep it. -SideMaster

Deleted: No proof that the flickr account is owned by the photographer. If you are the photographer, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 09:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this image is a scan from book "Kharkov 1942" by David Glantz. It might be PD-Ukraine but not pd-author. Avron (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, pd-inelgible might apply here. matanya • talk 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of items or from angles not accessible to the general public Odessey (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio, licence = Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Tekstman (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Obviously a derative of this file which has a license review template. Natuur12 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard from around 1920. Not free yet if photographer is unknown. тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. And what about the license template:Anonymous-EU? According to this license is the image free. --Gampe (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Painting made about 1950, and not in 1882. PD-old is not applicable, no info on permission. A.Savin 14:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. There is no evidence that the drawing was made ​​in 1950. As you can see, all drawings and photos at this source have the appropriate signatures, when the author is known to the publisher. Sealle (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. The name of the artist is irrelevant. There no evidence that this drawing was published before 1950. And according to the Russian legislation whatever was published first time after 1943 is not in the Public Domain. And to say, I see no name of the person who wrote the article as well. Эйхер (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. Any proof of Savin's statement that it's a much later drawing? Sources maybe? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  My name is A.Savin. Firstly we have COM:PRP and secondly this picture is a painting and was published in 1950, so I think the one who claims it to be created before 1918 has the burden of proof. --A.Savin 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU have the burden of proof. You say it was published in 1950. Prove it. COMPRP doesn't apply until there's significant doubt otherwise. If you say it was published in 1950, show us the publication. Your opinion alone, precious as it is, is not significant enough to cause a file to be deleted. Show us proofs or be a destructive force and a threat to the project. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. avoid personal attacks. From my point of view, there is significant doubt. From yours, there isn't. So this DR is legitimate and has to be decided afer 7 days, simple as it is. --A.Savin 09:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, some clarification is needed. The declared source of this image is an issue of Smena magazine, published in 1950. Since the image is a charcoal drawing and not a photograph, it hasn't to have been made during the event it reflects. Neither is it listed among the images of Mozhaisky's aircraft cited by scholars as source of information about the subject (only three such images are known, as far as I have learned). Therefore there no indication that it was published or even made before 1950. Note, that Smena magazine, which may be alleged to be the copyright owner, is still alive. Эйхер (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no proof was given, that the image was made or published before 1950. No information about author was given. So this is most probably an anonoymous work from 1950, so copyrighted and not suitable for Commons. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the UK.. Without permission from the artist, we cannot keep this on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious case of de minimis. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, I agree with Ultra. The bus-painting is de minimis. It is only partly and not well seen. The photo is small, it does not give good overview about painting. Another problem is suitability into project scope, but this is not questioned here and I tend to consider the photo in scope. Taivo (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unclear of publication date of photo, website used for source is not an official website DHN (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website provided as source is the official website of Truong Tan Sang, President of Vietnam. Photo must have been taken prior 1963, the year of President Ngo Dinh Diem's fall and coup d'etat - it's a professional, official photograph of First Lady Tran Le Xuanby the South Vietnamese government that would only be taken while she's still in office (that is 1963 and back), not after. Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Nguyen1310. I added the date "before 1963". Yann (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

website given is NOT an official site; publication date has no bearing on author's lifetime DHN (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader falsely claimed that the website is an official site when it is obviously not (all official government sites in Vietnam end with .gov.vn, this is a commercial website that is not even based in Vietnam; several newspapers in Vietnam have written about the misleading nature of these sites). This photo does not qualify for any of the criteria for public domain: it is safe to assume that the creator did not die more than 50 years ago (the subject herself only died in this decade), and it is unclear that it was published before 1960. DHN (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The license says: "This work is in the public domain in Vietnam for one of the following reasons:" and three points follow. Two first points are dubious, but the file is probably PD, because it corresponds to third point. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image of Tran Le Xuan is hardly considered "reactionary material", if that's what you're alluding to. DHN (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in Soviet Union and therefore I really think, that Vietnam considers this photo a reactionary material. For example, in Soviet Union it would certainly be reactionary material. Taivo (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i'm aware of, the website cited is an official personal website for the Vietnamese president Truong Tan Sang, so no i didn't "falsify" anything. Secondly, this photo is believed to fall under the third clause under PD, as this photo, and other items of a political nature/relationship from South Vietnam, or anti-communist, would be considered "reactionary" by the regime there. You'd be arrested and imprisoned for walking down a street bearing Madame Nhu's photo. I do not think the creator of this worked died 50+ years ago, almost impossible. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And at the time of upload, to my knowledge, works after 50 years from date of release would no longer be copyrighted, thus enter public domain, from Vietnam's copyright laws. This photo is guaranteed taken 1963 or before, not after, as I explained paragraphs above. It's been at least 51 years since this photo was taken. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website is some random website and has no official affiliation with whomever they're named after (you should always assume that's the case unless there is evidence to suggest that they're related, but if you need proof, see this [1]). In Vietnamese newspapers pictures of Diem or Madame Nhu have been published numerous times[2], so there's nothing "reactionary" about it. Based on which regulation can you claim that "works after 50 years from date of release would no longer be copyrighted"?? DHN (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Vietnam. Also, government-made and published materials, for most governments, are usually PD, or make exemptions for non-commercial, informational use of their works freely (if used within this context). Nguyen1310 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons. -FASTILY 09:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - looks quite simple. --Sporti (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)  Keep by me eyes no "work of art" but purpose-engineered building. - Andy king50 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Simple structure. INeverCry 21:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2019 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image is dated ca. 1924. That could also mean 1923 (as well, to be just 1925). It is the self portrait of the painter, used to illustrate him in his template and in his article. If the file had been named "um 1923" and dated ca. 1923 when it was uploaded nobody would have cared. But unfortunatly it was uploaded prior to the URAA-desaster here on Commons. --Wuselig (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the UK.. Without permission from the photographer, we cannot keep this on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stroud ... 'm' powered. KX05 TWM - Flickr - BazzaDaRambler.jpg Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Jim. Not a case of DM; the advertisement comprises a big portion of the side of the bus. The image is of high resolution, meaning someone could (e.g. extract the advert from this image) use it for unauthorized personal gain. FASTILY 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the UK.. Without permission from the photographer, we cannot keep this on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious case of de minimis. On a general note - if there is an admin out there who considers this sort of image to be a problem, then Commons has a BIG problem - use of advert panels of this size (ie, not all-over adverts but just placards placed in T shaped mountings) is pretty much standard practice in the UK, so if this image is not acceptable, there will be several thousand others on Commons that need to be deleted too. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Jim. Not a case of DM; the advertisement comprises a big portion of the side of the bus. The image is of high resolution, meaning someone could (e.g. extract the advert from this image) use it for unauthorized personal gain. FASTILY 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the UK. Without permission from the artist, we cannot keep this on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Arguably a case of de minimis. But if not, easily fixed by blurring the small portion of artwork to retain the majority of the image, which is perfectly acceptable. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Jim. Not a case of DM; the advertisement comprises a big portion of the side of the bus. The image is of high resolution, meaning someone could (e.g. extract the advert from this image) use it for unauthorized personal gain. FASTILY 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-01.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-02.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-03.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-04.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-05.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-06.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-07.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-08.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-09.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-10.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-11.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-12.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-14.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-15.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-16.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-17.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-18.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-19.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-20.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-21.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-22.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-23.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-24.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-25.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-26.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-27.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-28.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-29.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-30.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-31.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-32.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-33.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-34.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-35.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-36.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-37.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-38.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-39.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-40.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-41.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-42.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-43.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-44.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-45.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-46.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-47.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-51.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-52.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-54.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-56.JPG
• File:Loverator-original-veronika-fasterova-naha-eroticke-pomucky-darek-pro-muze-zeny-58.JPG

Copyvio images with watermark and COM:ADVERT --Gampe (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete (Those and all other uploads by this user.) Actually, they are probably _not_ copyvios, as the uploader is (probably) the copyright holder. However, COM:ADVERT and COM:SCOPE are definitely violated here, as the images (and the filenames (e.g. “[…] naked-erotic-toys-gift-for-men-women-##) and the descriptions (e.g. “Loverator Original, Playboy playmate Veronika Fasterova, What Women and Men Want, Gifts for men, gifts for women, erotic toys, orgasmic pillow. More on: ...www.loverator.cz”)) are blatant advertising and SEO-spamming. --Mormegil (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep most of them — in scope, good quality, relevant content, no copyright issues (as said above). The case can be made for deletion of some of these images, namely those showing off the branded items without any demonstation of their use. The annoying description and filenames should/can be trivially changed. (Also: some of these models had already a category in Commons.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could show an example of “relevant content”? What kind of educational content do you suppose are those pictures? --Mormegil (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose?, and scary quotes, too? Nah — if you don’t see it by yourself, it is useless to ask others to justify it for you. Naked ladies and naughty poses are in scope. Unhappy about it? Try Conservapedia. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are good illustrations for articles aka glamour, nude photography, portrait, creativity portrait, picture composition, studio lighting, underwear, sex v reklamě, etc...--Svajcr (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need this: aka and e.g.. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have no problem with nudity, sex, or whatever (even porn). Conservapedia is really not my cup of tea. The point is not that those images would be out of scope because they contain nudity. The point is they are not in scope just by virtue of containing nudity. 2) Maybe the question should have been "Could you show an example of a content which is _not_ relevant/educational"? Any picture could be a good illustration of its topic. ("Example of a bad picture composition"? And "good illustration for an article 'portrait'?? Really?) The images were obviously uploaded just for advertisement. A few of them might be salvagable. (OBTW you may need this: en:Scare quotes.) --Mormegil (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let us assume, that You are right. It is a commercial. The files can be renamed, the descriptions can be changed. The search engines will not found them. Let us look at Wikipedia from a timeless point of view, for example in 10 -20 years. What will happen with that company which sells these erotic goods? Pictures will be needed from historical point of view. Look at similar historic commercial pictures etc... Would you delete them?

• 
  Reklamní fotografie automobilu z roku 1934, jak ji vnímáte dnes?
• 
  Reklama nebo informace? Nesmažeme také? Je to profi fotka. - delete???
• Sophie Monk pro společnost PETA - smazat??? - delete???
  Sophie Monk pro společnost PETA - smazat??? - delete???
• 
  Promo snímek M.I.A. - smazat??? - delete???
• 
  N. Muray - reklama na Dodge, 1933
• 
  Práce na kokpitu letounu C-47, Alfred T. Palmer, 1942 - propaganda
• 
  U.S. Air Force, propaganda, 2013 - podobných najdete na commons desetitisíce!!!

A world-known wedding and commercial photographer D. Markine has his own category on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Dmitri_Markine . The administrators thanked him even for that.

Conclusion: I can not distinguish when it is a commercial which Wiki needs, and when it is a commercial of SEO type which must be deleted. I would understand the images from scientific poin of view, when each picture in the archive is good, wheather in terms of underground meaning "How was the life in the Czech republic in 2013 and what was sold in the shops at the time...." --Svajcr (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vít! You are completely wrong. Images I marked above clearly break two rules of Wikimedia Commons:

1. they are watermarked
2. they are a part of masive COM:ADVERT self-promotion campaign
3. image names and uploader's name is also a part of this campaign

--Gampe (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Like Mormegil and Gampe ad 2) and 3). --Packa (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I am convinced that these pictures does not serve for promotion of illustrative or encyclopedic content, but to work as a) advertisement b) use Commons as a cheap filesharing service. As the importance of Wikipedia is growing, there are more and more companies willing to use Wikipedia as a free ad platform, violating our policies. Having bunch of mess on Wikimedia Commons should not work as an excuse for this practice. The fact that your neighbor has mess on his yard is definitely not a reason to act accordingly. --Aktron (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - It's not content usable on wiki and it's also an advertisement. Even photos of models are not good for illustrating an article. Most of them are nude. Dominikmatus (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nude ∴ delete? Keep diggin’… -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the problem of the subject. There is a lot of nudes (see Category:Nude people) and a lot of erotic images (e.g. Category:Sex toys) at Commons. The matter of fact are the broken Commons rules. BTW many images of Loverator still left. --Gampe (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Commons is not a means of personal promotion FASTILY 23:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source site owner didn't published these photos in free license. According to site owner's copyright noticement, the files are CC-BY-NC. NC is clearly not allowed in Commons. Thanks.

• File:Edcarlos Conceicao Santos.jpg
• File:Choi Won-Kwon.jpg
• File:Choi Sung-Yong.jpg
• File:Choi Jae-Soo.jpg
• File:Cho Yong-Tae.jpg
• File:Choi Hyo-Jin.jpg
• File:Bae Sung-Jae.jpg
• File:Adilson dos Santos.jpg
• File:Ahn Sang-Hyun.jpg
• File:George Leandro Abreu De Lima.jpg

레비Revi_D✉CM 08:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission from author.--Fetx2002 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

안녕하세요. 홍준기입니다.

해당 라이센스로 배포하시면 될 것 같습니다. 제 블로그에선 BY-NC-SA 라이센스를 사용중인데 위키백과라는 컨텐츠 자체가 비영리니까 NC 라이센스는 굳이 안 들어가도 무방할거 같구요.

사진을 보내드리는건 좀 어렵습니다. 찍은 사진이 워낙 많아서 일일히 고르기도 어렵구요. 대신 제가 찍은 사진은 전부 제 블로그에 올라가있고, 기본적으로 긴축 1200픽셀짜리의 크기가 큰 사진들이니 웹에서 사용하시는데에는 큰 무리가 없을 것입니다. 블로그에서 쓰시고 싶으신 사진 마음껏 쓰셔도 됩니다.

ps. 저작권자 표기는 간단하게 ⓒ블루포토 홍준기 로 해주시면 될 것 같습니다. (블로그 주소 적을 필요 X)--Fetx2002 (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow COM:OTRS. --레비Revi_D✉CM 11:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has been sent, but, we need a Korean speaker to confirm. Sarah (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, two users from KO-N has OTRS access. @Sotiale: ,@Kwj2772: . --레비Revi_D✉CM 22:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Permission confirmed. – Kwj2772 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep since files have OTRS confirmed. --레비Revi_D✉CM 14:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 05:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos taken from Blue Photo appear to be licensed {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}, not {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and therefore not free enough for use on Commons.

• File:Yoon Sung-Hyo in 2013.jpg
• File:Yeon Je-Min.jpg
• File:Yoo Ji-No.jpg
• File:Yang Dong-Won.jpg
• File:Thiago Elias Do Nascimento Sil.jpg
• File:Shin Se-Kye.jpg
• File:Server Djeparov.jpg
• File:Sergio Escudero (born 1988).jpg
• File:Seo Jung-Jin.jpg
• File:Park Yong-Jae.jpg
• File:Park Tae-Min.jpg
• File:Park Moon-Sung.jpg
• File:Park Jin-Po.jpg
• File:Natanael De Souza Santos Junior.jpg
• File:Min Sang-Gi.jpg
• File:Lim Sang-Hyub.jpg
• File:Lee Sung-Woon.jpg
• File:Yun Il-Rok.jpg
• File:Lee Seung-Hee.jpg
• File:Lee Seok-Hyun.jpg
• File:Lee Jong-Ho.jpg
• File:Lee Hyung-Woong.jpg
• File:Lee Chang-Keun.jpg
• File:Lee Byung-Keun.jpg
• File:Lee Bum-Young in 2013.jpg
• File:Kwon Jung-Hyuk.jpg
• File:Kwak Kwang-Sun.jpg
• File:Ko Yo-Han.jpg
• File:Koo Hyun-Joon.jpg
• File:Ko Cha-Won.jpg
• File:Ko Myung-Jin.jpg
• File:Ko Jong-Soo.jpg
• File:Kim Tae-Hwan.jpg
• File:Kim Sung-Joon.jpg
• File:Kim Joo-Young.jpg
• File:Kim Nam-Il in 2013.jpg
• File:Kim Jin-Kyu.jpg
• File:Kim Han-Yoon in 2013.jpg
• File:Kim Jae-Woong.jpg
• File:Kim Eung-Jin.jpg
• File:Kim Dong-Seob.jpg
• File:Kim Chi-Woo.jpg
• File:Jeon Sung-Chan.jpg
• File:Jeon Sang-Wook.jpg
• File:Im Kyung-Hyun.jpg
• File:Ivan Vukovic.jpg
• File:Hyun Young-Min.jpg
• File:Kim Young-Nam.jpg
• File:Ha Dae-Sung.jpg
• File:Edcarlos Conceicao Santos.jpg
• File:Choi Won-Kwon.jpg
• File:Choi Sung-Yong.jpg
• File:Choi Jae-Soo.jpg
• File:Cho Yong-Tae.jpg
• File:Choi Hyo-Jin.jpg
• File:Bae Sung-Jae.jpg
• File:Adilson dos Santos.jpg
• File:Ahn Sang-Hyun.jpg
• File:George Leandro Abreu De Lima.jpg

Ytoyoda (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be same OTRS above, I guess. --레비Revi 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see the previous deletion requests or the OTRS tags. My apologies. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently all these have OTRS permission -FASTILY 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for these images belongs to NBAE/Getty Images, not the photographer. And in the description: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.

• File:20141126 New York Knicks v Dallas Mavericks (Chandler Parsons).jpg
• File:20141103 Boston Celtics v Dallas Mavericks (Chandler Parsons).jpg
• File:20141126 New York Knicks v Dallas Mavericks.jpg
• File:20141103 Boston Celtics v Dallas Mavericks.jpg

Ytoyoda (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Flickr washing. Yann (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope - low quality image uploaded by single-purpose account INeverCry 01:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: This seems to be the only photo we have of a real (i.e., not a diagram) flat-shown (not draped, fluttering, furled, etc.) Union Jack in the frequent albeit unofficial 2:3 ratio. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also the only small, dark phone pic of one shown on a bathroom floor soacked in urine near a toilet. A real gem. INeverCry 19:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That latter aspect adds to its interest, almost unique among flag desacration scenes (we seem to have only Category:Flag trampling‎ and Category:Flag burning). Not that I condone it, a cursory web search for my name will tell you that I like flags — and flags look best up on a pole in windy sunny weather, but still such practice needs documenting, and the concept is encyclopedic. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]