 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
|
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
|
I uploaded it by mistake Ashishkumar468 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: dupe, uploader's request on day of upload. --Achim (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_DiNapoli_Bill_Clinton_rally_in_Binghamton,_April_2016.jpg 204.80.61.96 15:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Should have been Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tom DiNapoli Bill Clinton rally in Binghamton, April 2016.jpg. --Achim (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Own Work https://agenturfrehse.com/kuenstler/darya-gritsyuk/ An-d (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyTúrelio at 14:51, 3 März 2020 UTC: COM:CSD#G4, Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. --Krdbot 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Metadata, it shows my name, and I don't want it there. Jacob Kraktovisk (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byUser:Túrelio, CSD G7. GFJ (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no freedom of panorama in Italy and the photo violates architect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nicht mein Foto. Ich kann nichts erkennen, was dort geschützt sein sollte. --Ralf Roletschek 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Anyway, in case of deletion here, it has to be exported to any and every project where it's currently in use, as these restrictions have no value for deWP or nlWP or such.[reply]
Delete Of course is this architecture above Originality threshold. --A.Savin 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral after some googling -- the original building is from 1925, the project is by architect Ulisse Stacchini (died in 1947) and engineer Alberto Cugini (unknown when died). So, even if the latter died less than 70 years ago, I wonder if the engineer has parts of the copyrights on architecture. But would be great anyway if someone could research the year of his death at least. Also, there were some later renovations (1955, 1990, 2015), but I don't think they have generated additional copyright. --A.Savin 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the building is no longer under copyright, then information about when it was built and by whom needs to be added to the file page, and the public domain status (edit: of the building) should be noted with a template like {{Licensed-PD}}. clpo13(talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, I did not know, that architect is more than 70 years dead. The building looked so modern... I will improve description and licensing. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Originally uploaded to Unsplash, and Unsplash photos after June 2017 are incompatible with Commons. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyTúrelio at 20:28, 5 März 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: Originally uploaded to Unsplash, and Unsplash photos after June 2017 are incompatible with Commons. And the deletion requests should be closed. --Krdbot 08:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missing permission: per F1, content is apparently a copyright violation, with no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work. (Contributor has repeatedly uploaded non-free material.) Barte (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to overwrite the original picture, but created a new version instead Renek78 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source = Google, suggests that this is not a free licence ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyEllin Beltz at 05:07, 8 März 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 08:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC SA 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC SA 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC SA 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletedbyMajora at 01:06, 7 März 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - Requested by uploader --Krdbot 14:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The credited photographer (Stephan Hlohowskyj) for the cropped version of the photo displayed here:https://uathompsonlab.com/team/ indicates "I did not upload that photo to the competition nor did I give consent for the photo to be used on wiki commons." Quercusechinus (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an OTRS email received for “File:Kiritimati_watersampling.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2020030510006978. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Quercusechinus, I have just accepted permission for “File:Kiritimati_watersampling.jpg” under ticket:2020030510006978. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: Permission is ok and archived at OTRS (I read the ticket as well). @Ww2censor: when processing permisisons, please correct author and license on the file description as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC SA 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byMajora; failed license review, requested by uploader. GFJ (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is CC BY NC SA 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Mário NET (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:byMajora; failed license review, requested by uploader. GFJ (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also File:Canalesexy.jpg
Small size, no metadata, found in Internet in more size. Most probably the uploader is not the author. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trikumiku. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal diagrams, logos, tables, and text-only images, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal/corporate diagrams, logos, tables, and text-only images, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal/corporate diagrams, logos, tables, and text-only images, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal/corporate diagrams, screenshots, tables, and text-only images, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused promotional logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal artwork, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused random photo of greenery, no context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No source/permission. Likely copyvios
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused blank image, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not licensed correctly. I am not the author Cement4802 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not licensed properly. A new version of the image has already been re-uploaded and licensed properly under a fair use license Cement4802 (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: File deleted by Ellin Beltz. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OUT of COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTHOST.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused text-only doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused promotional image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused screenshot, no context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused very low quality photo of nondescript piece of wood, no context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal doodle, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused logo, out of scope. Also above TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded on March 1, 2020. Published in June 2019 at the Facebook page for Boukker Thuresson (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From YandexMaps (see on the bottom) — Redboston 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
неверные данные об авторском праве: автор (это не работа загрузившего, а карта Люфтваффе), год (не 2016, а 1941). Настоящий автор неизвестен, статус авторского права не определён. — Redboston 20:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bad quality (video still?), grabbed from the web ( https://twitter.com/FactsBalkan/status/771346875618365441/photo/2 ) Albinfo (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE. --Ahmadtalk 15:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE. --Ahmadtalk 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope. cross wiki spam. previously deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable derivative work of copyrighted text and illustrations.
ƏXPLICIT 03:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 15:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations Dmuteg (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: small photo with no EXIF data, can be found elsewhere on the web using Google search by image. --Ahmadtalk 15:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is a personal pic. don't want this commons any more. The9Man (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader's request, not in use. --Ahmadtalk 15:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination together with File:Drama stars.jpg. --Green Giant (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo for non-wikipedian. Out of scope
--Alaa :)..! 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope.
Elli (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Category:Rosenmontag in Köthen additionally to the existing category:Karneval in Köthen, as there are 6 subcategories of Rosenmontag in Köthen for different years that should show up on the main category:Rosenmontag|Köthen.
While the exisiting category:Karneval in Köthen up to now only contains images from the Rosenmontag in Köthen, the Karneval in Köthen consists not only of the Rosenmontag, but also at least of this events, that do not occur on Rosenmontag:
As there are no media files from any Köthen Karneval event but the Rosenmnontag, it might make sense to make one of the two categories a redirect to the other until images from other Karneval events are uploaded to commons, or to delete the Karneval in Köthen category for the time being.
But I do not think, that it makes sense to delete the more specific category:
Sicherlich's statement on my user talk page, that the carnival in Köthen only starts at Rosenmontag 11.11 (and that there are no other carnival events in Köthen on other days) is obviously wrong.
--C.Suthorn (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: as redirect. --Achim (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bad Quality The image is very blurry. In my opinion it is out of project scope due to bad quality. ArnabSaha (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncategorized, and it is a blurry pic. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Delete Agreed. This is so blurred that it probably qualifies as a speedy -- no educational use whatsoever. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentation of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 17:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy concern MasterMinhaz (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
watermark and no exif = probably not user's photo to upload Mjrmtg (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Private photo. Used for selfpromotion only Hjart (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my file. Please delete. SiraKen0411 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal usage. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1941 photos are not own work. Real photographer and better license are needed. Taivo (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Derivatives:
It's not released under the OGL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/49418834127/. It's by-nc-nd. DrKay (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oops I missed it. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of COM:SCOPE. Ahmadtalk 19:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of COM:SCOPE, self-promotion.
Ahmadtalk 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope, somebody's random selfie Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: encyclopedic relevance / notability appear to be missing. Sole contribution of the uploader globally. 2001:4BB8:24C:23A4:4971:43B8:CECE:A2F5 22:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: unused image of what appears to be a non-notable person. GFJ (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be the photograph of a screen, likely copyright violation. GFJ (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope and unused: Notability of the person in this image is questionable. 2001:4BB8:250:10:7472:5B99:5979:E6D0 23:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, appears to lack encyclopedic relevance. 2001:4BB8:250:10:7472:5B99:5979:E6D0 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compound is not covalent (and if it were, it would not have formal –/+ charges). And despite being in-use, it's an uncited composite of other images, so "license violation" and therefore deletable regardless of in-use. We have File:Sodium Cyanate.svg if someone wants a diagram of this compound. DMacks (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with DMacks reasoning. It's an obvious chemical mistake that leads to misunderstandings and provides users with incorrect information! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 20:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pornography 2001:56A:7389:BE00:D94E:96AD:951C:ABAA 06:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not this again!!! To this IP, another on a moral crusade, always they somehow manage to find something they are not searching in particular when they are clearly marked,as per usual ("I was searching for something else but somehow i ended here"); 1- As per GFJ is not censored; 2- This files is educational; 3- This file was kept in other deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit Ninja.jpg (twice), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology. Is this the start of another debacle like the one last November on the Wikiconference 2019?Tm (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Eissink (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC).[reply] Delete Educationally worthless, therefore out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]| # | File | Usage | Non-core |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg | 1 |
--Fæ (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AshFriday, you claim that this file is "out of scope" and yet it is clearly stated in Commons:Scope that "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough". Even worst the file was kept twice in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit Ninja.jpg and in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology. Please, less moralistic crusades ("Fighting a never-ending battle against copyright vios and smut." as you say in your userpage), as can be seen by the pattern of your edits. Tm (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: Nudity does not automatically mean pornography. The file is in use but more importantly it is an art work alluding to a notable game. I have updated the file summary appropriately. --Green Giant (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely is soft pornography at the least. Compare it to the Page 3 girls in British newspapers like The Sun, which used photos of topless and often nude women together with some minor information. For example, see this page from 2018 where Lucy tells us about supporting the England football (soccer) team. Her nudity has absolutely nothing to do with football and is used purely to sell newspapers. In the same way, this model could be absent from the photo and it would still give the same message about the game. The nudity is there purely to sell the images Exey creates. There is no real educational motive behind these photos. 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:4063:D6BC:610C:43C1 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eissink (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply] Keep Always running in pursuit of another moral crusade. No new reason, and kept once above, twice more in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit Ninja.jpg and a fourth time in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology. To the IP, was not enough the debacle like the one last November on the Wikiconference 2019 and do you need another debacle? And image clearly in scope as this is part of Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. This project has been a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best between 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, and has been nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the american International Colour Awards. Keep per the numerous previous keeps of this series of images. Nothing new has been presented here. Yes it's nudity outside of a medical context, but that doesn't mean it's out of scope. Also the existence of Page 3 is irrelevant here. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: Per Eissink, this request should have been directed through my talk page. I am going to protect both the file and this page for a while to prevent further such DR's. --Green Giant (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not own-work https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Virginia.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Self-created artwork without encyclopedic relevance, out of scope. GFJ (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Self-created artwork without encyclopedic relevance, out of scope. GFJ (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims Own-Work while gif was made by https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims own-work https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-California.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most Likely not Own-Work, many forms of this 'Person with Flag' Gif exist on the internet far as early 2000s https://media.tenor.com/images/a9cff79865f8e84c6b53b759164eec99/tenor.gif https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DeficientSpanishAurochs-size_restricted.gif BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Own Work https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Oklahoma.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Michigan.html Not Own WOrk BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Mississippi.html Not Own Work BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Own Work https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Oregon.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Own Work https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Pennsylvania.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of copyrighted artworks A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of copyrighted artworks A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoFoP for posters in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1968 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post 1969 design. Not public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely poor quality Achim (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. The uploader took picture of this text book directly. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. The uploader took picture of this text book directly. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Personal usage. Not educational. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Commons is NOT archive of personal photographs. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Commons is NOT archive of personal photographs. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This chart is educationally meaningless. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This chart is educationally meaningless. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This chart is educationally meaningless. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This chart is educationally meaningless. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not licensed properly. A fair use version of the image with correct licensing has been re-uploaded Cement4802 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Badly overexposed, unusable, plenty of similar photos in category. Retired electrician (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unusable due to an upload error, somewhat better uploads exist at File:Burulkan Sarygulova Azattyk.jpg and File:Burulkan Sarygulova redactor.jpg. GFJ (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, delete two older versions because they have copyrighted website's GUI. Don't delete actual version. — Redboston 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality photo of switch, out of scope. Superseded by numerous better ones in its category. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused low quality photo of switch, out of scope. Superseded by numerous better ones in its category. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused images. No meaningful explanation, possibly advertising. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a composite image. The second source image is not linked, and neither author is credited. Definitely not "own work". Powers (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not own work. This is a composite image. The image of the woman is cropped and flipped from File:Mons pubis 02.jpg without credit. Who knows where the rest of the composite came from. Powers (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. No source for the right image. Can be recreated if needed with proper sourcing. --Yann (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information is wrong. The "GT Bicycle" logo is fautly. Bike Brands (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This file is used on multiple Wikipedias, from de:GT Bicyclestosk:GT Bicycles. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Commons under COM:NPOV. I also note that the logo looks pretty similar to the one currently on https://www.gtbicycles.com/. --bjh21 (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply](Non-admin) kept. Just have the new one uploaded if necessary. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 11:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of an unused private person, and if used, is just to be a "vain image" (Sorry, Google Translate) Euro know (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of an unused private person, and if used, is just to be a "vain image" (Sorry, Google Translate) Euro know (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A picture of an unused private person, and if used, is just to be a "vain image" (Sorry, Google Translate) Euro know (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload among copyright violations. I suspect again copyvio. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is advertisment for s PCB manufacturer, out of project scope!Ras67 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cross wiki spam Quakewoody (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal picture. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused prohibitory sign. Personal usage. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear how the uploader can justify that this image, which appears to be a selfie, is released into the Creative Commons through a website that seems unrelated to the subject. Further, there is no copyright information at the target URL provided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright violation. This Image has been screenshot from a YouTube video that has reuploaded "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V67E4hkmF-4", a video copyright by E! Vistadan 16:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potential copyright violation because this is part of a screenshot of a website. Not in use. 2001:4BB8:24C:23A4:4971:43B8:CECE:A2F5 22:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sculpture by Alexander Shlapak (? - ?) and Evgeny Karpov (b. 1949 - present). No FoP in Ukraine for this sculpture that is still copyrighted. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this photo is property of ELOI OMELLA PADILLA (you can see in the original metada) and also licenseable in istockphoto.com or https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/aerial-view-of-lower-manhattan-new-york-royalty-free-image/946087016?language=en-US 195.55.46.110 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Getty Images Royalty-Free license is apparently not a free license. The Flicker user does not own the copyright of the photo hence cannot re-license it under CC BY. --Wcam (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]this photo is property of ELOI OMELLA PADILLA (you can see in the original metada) and also licenseable in istockphoto.com or https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/aerial-view-of-lower-manhattan-new-york-royalty-free-image/946087016?language=en-US 195.55.46.110 07:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, COM:LL. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by QueerEcofeministasCopyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. The claimed source is "Own work", the file isn't small, it has proper EXIF data and I couldn't find it elsewhere on the web using Google search by image/TinEye. I'd say Keep. Ahmadtalk 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Although the user does not have a good track record in uploading files, there is a good chance that this single image is indeed their own work. Let's be optimistic. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not OwnWork https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-India.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
obviously indoor image of an art exhibition, no freedom of panorama, no permission visible Alabasterstein (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
obviously indoor image of an art exhibition, no freedom of panorama, no permission visible Alabasterstein (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:TikTok Logo.svg. CptViraj (📧) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The IP is correct, both the SVG and PNG are eligible for speedy deletion per CSD G4. If they wish to have the TikTok logo back again, they should go to COM:UDR and establish consensus there. --pandakekok9 09:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, recreation of content deleted by community consensus. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see COM:OTRS: "I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter", in which case the uploader must send an email to OTRS to verify the free license.
These photos has been previously published without a free license on Twitter by different account holder. https://twitter.com/HolyBaby1210/status/1202641942313521152 https://twitter.com/DAYDREAM_961210/status/912297730831130626
--Gda0608 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These all appear to be flags proposed by S.fuer. Commons is not a place to propose new flags, and as far as I can tell these flags have no existence independent of Commons. The St Martin flag appears (copied from Commons) in a thread on r/vexillology, while the Singapore one appears on a disused Facebook page from 2013 and copied onto DeviantArt. None of the files is used on any other project. This means that they're outside of Commons:Project scope.
bjh21 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of permission from the photographer. PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of permission from the photographer, no proof of publishing. PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of permission from the photographer, no proof of publishing. PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small, no EXIF data, Google/TinEye hits. Ahmadtalk 20:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not his photo, but mine. You can find the original photo at this address: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biserica_Sfin%C5%A3ii_Apostoli_Petru_%C5%9Fi_Paul_din_R%C4%83duc%C4%83neni.jpg. He stole my photo and he says he is the author, causing me a prejudice. Please delete this file. Cezarika1 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source, familysearch.org, cites http://www.panoramio.com/photo/36312242 (deadlink) and a 2016 archive says it's CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0. Familysearch.org has the text "Non-Commercial-NoDerivative Works" after saying it's CC-BY 2.0. Perhaps they meant CC-BY-NC-ND instead. Deevayy (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the panoramio source has been discontinued, I don`t know what to say. The originating website (familysearch.org) says the photo is available under a "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic" license, and I believed them. Scribley (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sculpture is by Konstantin Sinyavin (living artist), no FoP in Ukraine for scultures that are not old enough to be PD. Please transfer the Russian Wikipedia before deleting! PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sculpture is by Evgeny Vuchetich (d. 1974), meaning this can't be on Commons since Ukraine doesn't have FoP for copyrighted sculptures PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to File:TAC.jpg, the only difference is that this version is slightly blurry. GFJ (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal upload. Unused. Out of scope. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Gunofficial1998asCopyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://thang-phai.blogspot.com/2017/11/02112017-oc-tham-khao-ngo-inh-diem-1901.html
Converted to regular DR, as this image from year 1902 or 1903 is likely in the public domain. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: bogus license - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
claimed copyright owner may not be the user uploaded the photo. Robertsky (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical document. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photo and map. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official document. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official documents. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copyright violation https://shop.jimmypage.com/products/653167-catalyst-by-scarlett-sabet-signed-edition Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the picture is shown here with photographer n.n. https://www.deutsches-tanzarchiv.de/fileadmin/user_upload/www.tanzarchiv-koeln.de/sammlungen/akesson/akesson6.jpg . It is not the first critical upload of User:Djt7572, so it would be best if all objects of User:Djt7572 could be proofed. Goesseln (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the photographer is not named Goesseln (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has OTRS-confirmed permission. Like as not, the copyright for the photo was assigned to the organization that published the magazine, but only someone with OTRS access could confirm if the related ticket mentions that. clpo13(talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep The copyright holder is mentioned and the OTRS ticket is valid. No reason to insist on the photographer's name. --Krd 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in German, sorry ...
worüber soll ich mich mehr ärgern?
Oder soll ich mich freuen, dass ich, angespornt durch die Widerstände hier, mal wieder in Literatur über Arnold Schönberg eintauchen durfte, da war ich als WP-Freiwilliger schon ein paar mal, siehe zum Beispiel 2009 bei de:Marie Pappenheim und 2020 c:File:Oskar Schlemmer Die glückliche Hand 1. Bild 1930.jpg.
Alas!
Das Foto wurde (das erste Mal?) 1951 veröffentlicht in
mit der Legende courtesy of Richard Fish
1961 erfolgte die Veröffentlichung in der de:Österreichische Musikzeitschrift, die hier zur Diskussion steht.
Das Foto ist auch vorhanden in
dort steht in der Legende: Photograph by Richard Fish copyright 1953, renewed 1981
In meiner UB steht aus dem Jahr 2011
dort auf Seite 216 ist das Foto vorhanden mit einem © 1953 Richard Fish und in der Legende Courtesy Arnold Schönberg Center (Wien). In der Legende steht auch, wie die drei Schüler in der ersten Reihe heißen. Also hat das ASC das Bild auch, und gibt es auch bereitwillig heraus. Allerdings in diesem Fall mit dem © Richard Fish.
Der Schönberg-Nachlass des Fotografen Richard Fish ging 2005 an das ASC. Die insgesamt 60 Schönberg-Fotos von Richard Fish konnten samt Negativen und Publikationsrechten nach dessen Tod im Jahr 2005 vom Arnold Schönberg Center erworben werden und befinden sich als "Richard Fish Collection" im Bestand des Archives. Schönberg-Center: "Richard Fish: Die Schönberg-Fotografien", 2007
Nebenbei: Das Foto wurde zwischen 1944 und 1948 aufgenommen, die Legendenschreiber sind sich nicht einig. --Goesseln (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Wdwd (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Also nochmal die offensichtlichen und die nicht offensichtlichen facts:
Warum ist Joachim Diederichs/der anonyme OTRS-Schreiber nicht in der Lage, den Namen Richard Fish als Fotograf zu nennen und den Nachnutzern damit zu helfen, das Foto bestmöglich zu präsentieren? Warum kann der OTRS-Freiwillige da nicht nachfragen? Warum müssen wir das (4 gegen 1; 4 gegen 1a; 4 gegen 2) jetzt unkritisch abnicken? Not amused --Goesseln (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metadata credits EM Dash Photography, requires COM:OTRS ticket Ytoyoda (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate (File:VH-ABR 'Kanana' Douglas DC-3-G202A Ansett Airways (Ansett Historical Aviation Group) (8418433054).jpg) DS28 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination; tag as duplicate in future. --Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marked by user:Skazi as a speedy deletion (unfree Screenshot); May be a derivative work, in my opionin passport photo; Start a regular DR after objection, see comment an my discussion page, [1] Wdwd (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Derivative work of non-free content. Skazi (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope?Taivo (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo. Poor quality. 67.86.72.207 12:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 2007, significantly in use. --Fæ (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, missing educational value? Taivo (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
タイトルを変えたいので Falcated (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: try {{Rename}} instead. ファイル名を変えたいだけであれば {{Rename}} を使ってください. --Yasu (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
タイトルを変える為 Falcated (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: try {{Rename}} instead. ファイル名を変えたいだけであれば {{Rename}} を使ってください. --Yasu (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
taitoruwokaerutame Falcated (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: try {{Rename}} instead. ファイル名を変えたいだけであれば {{Rename}} を使ってください. --Yasu (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this qualified for Freedo of Panorama in India. Therefore it is a derivative work of another copyrighted work of art. We do not know if this is made by a corporate entity or an individual, so adding 50 years to a standar 60 year copyright term, and we can safely have this work in 2120. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COM:DW packaging. 85.212.217.34 08:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. We have file:Flag of Pakistan.svg. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope for Commons. This is use of Commons to publish a text which purports to contain original mathematical research. (I say "purports to" because in fact the supposedly new content is not new at all.) (It also contains copies of various pieces of Wikipedia articles, in some cases old revisions of Wikipedia articles from several years ago.) In terms of the criteria at Commons:Project scope, this is essentially Purely textual material, written in a way which amounts to an Encyclopedia article. It also does not appear to satisfy the criterion that it Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose, as there is nothing educational about a text which claims to publish new research which in fact is material known to mathematicians for centuries. JBW (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Children's painting, this way no COM:EDUSE. Achim (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Achim, There Are Many Reasons This File Should Be Allowed. 1. It Can Be Used For Educational Purposes As It Has Information 2. It Was Drawn By Me Using A Picture Editor These Edits Where Made By The Company RhysTTime On Witch I Speak On The Behalf Of At 13:47 On the Third Of March 2020 (British Standerd Time)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous and misleading image; The emblem of Narnia within the Chronicles of Narnia series is specifically described as being a red lion on a green field, not a red lion on a half yellow/half green field, and nowhere is any image of this one's description featured anywhere in the books. And there really wouldn't be any point in altering this already existing image, since two SVG versions of the correct arms (with full green fields) already exist on WC. So sorry about this. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be public domain PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyright problem: metadata of photo says that author and copyright holder of the photo it is a different person from the one shown in the author field (and this sound reasonable since both the author and the subject of the photo are claimed to be "Brant Dryver") ; in addition photo already in use on Twitter with no evidence of a CC license. In my opinion the uploader is the subject of the photo but consequentely not the author so he cannot decide which license use. Civitas13 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a PDF of the article es:Coitus interruptus. Definitely not "own work" and of no value to Commons. Powers (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely useless, for newer version exists Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: in scope. No equivalents in Category:Hasanaliler. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As image creator, i would like this map deleted as it is not accurate. It was a map of the geographic region of Semirechye, and not the Central Asian revolt of 1916 which it purports to portray. Koopinator (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused file. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I learnt that there are some misinterpretations about this so want this to be deleted. Bhuvana Meenakshi (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I learnt that there are some misinterpretations about this so want this to be deleted. Bhuvana Meenakshi (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative, smaller jpg-file uploaded instead. FrankSchipper (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: courtesy deletion, superseded by File:JFKWHP-AR6670-A.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure this is not an official flag of Vorukh, and, actually, I think that this is nothing more than an invention of the uploader. There is no source to be found to proof the existence of this flag. In my interpretation this file is out of scope, but at the very least its file name and description are misleading. → «« Man77 »» [de] 15:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This file is used by Wikipedias from ar:فوروخtotg:Ворух. Under COM:NPOV, if it's used by other projects, Commons shouldn't delete it for inaccuracy. @Man77: you can still update the description, request renaming, and work on updating other projects. --bjh21 (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. No longer used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Highly redundant (almost identical) to File:Peisaj din Fierbinți Targ in Iuna Iunie 2018.jpg. 89.144.196.10 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Highly redundant (almost identical) to File:Peisaj din Fierbinți Targ in Iuna Iunie 2018.jpg. 89.144.196.10 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Published at https://lulacerda.ig.com.br/evento-apresenta-colecao-inspirada-no-reino-unido/nggallery/image/nicolas-calligaro?newwindow=true%26doing_wp_c#gallery/d89eb4246e71b32aeaf6f9e49f58f603/67652 before upload on Commons Ytoyoda (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped versions of photo found at https://novilidery.com/lider/2-season/Vedrovska_Valentina_Valentinivna. Now, these images have their EXIF data and the resolutions are pretty high, so uploader could be the owner.
Ytoyoda (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The logo looks to be above the threshold of originality, though I can see reasonable arguments either way.
Ytoyoda (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unedited version with flash reflection in corners Rereader1996 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims Animation made with https://makesweet.com/my/flag is PD BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Creative decisions made by the author of the animation tool are above COM:TOO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims OwnWork from https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/animated-flag-gif/flags-Sudan.html BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Animation above COM:TOO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Random PNG Copy of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Taliban.svg claims author is just 'afghanistan' BlinxTheKitty (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Ineligible for copyright protection. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Çünkü o Logo Magurale (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused text doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a catalogue of a russian library, it is encyclopedic, and not out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep Senapa (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: in scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely this is not a permanent display, and thus it does not qualify for Freedom of Panorama in India. This in turn makes it a derivative work of another copyrighted work. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a work of a corporate body, and thus it can be undeleted in 60 years from publication, this make is 2070. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by SawolasSpeedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: G1
Converted by me to regular DR, as image does not qualify for speedy-deletion. As it was originally uploaded to Commons in 2008, there may be a lot of external uses. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution file without metadata, unlikely to be own work. 176.59.47.219 11:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Piqsels pulls free license images from other sources, like Pixabay and Unsplash. This one is originally from Unsplash, and the license at the time of the original upload is incompatible with use on Commons. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that Piqsels pulls content from Unsplash (and possibly other royalty-free sources), and this one is from this Unsplash photo. Since it was uploaded in 2018, the license is not compatible with Commons. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a PR picture that appears in several places on the web. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note FOX 52 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is NOT an image of NYS Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and we respectfully request to have it removed. 204.80.61.96 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The picture is in use on en:Thomas DiNapoli. Under COM:NPOV, if English Wikipedia finds it useful, we should keep it. --bjh21 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is NOT an image of NYS Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and we respectfully request to have it deleted. 204.80.61.96 16:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates with A. Deschanel.jpg. Cheep (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Сомнения в лицензии: неизвестно, где было сделано фото, когда скончался фотограф, было ли правомерно обнародован снимок. Необходимо обращение в OTRS. Dogad75 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suggesting this needs an OTRS release is rediculous, do we expect a photographer active in 1916 is going to email us? Based on Кошиц known to be performing in Moscow in this period, and this clearly is a promotional photograph published at that time, PD-Russia applies. Evidence to the contrary would have to be significant, not just unlikely suspicion. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:noevidence for publishing before 7 November 1917. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Сомнения в лицензии: неизвестно место создания фото, был ли снимок правомерно обнародован Dogad75 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted:noevidence for publishing before 7 November 1917. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:TOYS, OTRS-permission from toymaker is needed. But maybe the object is very old? When it was created and who was the sculptor? Taivo (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination - not enough information at file description page to determine if it's old enough to be public domain, so COM:TOYS prevails. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio - Cheep (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cette photo provient du site EELV.fr, dont les mentions précisent que l'ensemble des contenus est sous licence Creative Commons. https://eelv.fr/mentions-legales/
Kept: Has CC on website. --Gbawden (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created this, but now I did better version: 
that one should be deleted because of lower quality and lower resolution. Gower (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Çünkü o Logo Magurale (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: No permission. --Gbawden (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source Own work. Official image of a city, it was not created by the editor. Misappropriation O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This file is only one of many means, used by the same author that uploaded it, for advertise his own pseudoscientific work. Moseley's Law is still valid and taught in all universities, this user is deeply problematic and is spamming the whole Wikimedia Project. Anyway this is at least an original research. --Cisco79 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Why is it a pseudoscientific work? The information contained in this file is adequately provided with references. The Moseley's law is still taught in universities, but this file illustrate how and when Moseley's law deviates from the experimental data provided by NIST. --Starace Aniello (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: No consensus. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image created in Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France without consent per ticket:2020030210008267
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Courtesy deletion of unused image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Нарушение авторских прав скульптора (художника) на приз премии или правообладателя. Dogad75 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Ias59 Добрый день. Это фото было предоставлено с личного архива группы одним из ее участников? Как доказать права на нее? P.S. Письмо с личной почты автора отправляли[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
License laundering. The immediate source - http://wiki.laser.ru/ - is a wiki resource, which is not the copyright holder, and the nickname of uploader is similar to the Commons' one. Other websites mentioned as sources are not free-licensed.
Sealle (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_underside_-_iNaturalist.org.jpg){kind=link}
_-_iNaturalist.org(2).jpg){kind=link}
_-_iNaturalist.org(1).jpg){kind=link}
_-_WoRMS.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WoRMS2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![222 File:Из семейного архива.『Золотой Орфей』1971.jpg](http://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/03/03@.gd#File:Из_семейного_архива._"Золотой_Орфей"_1971.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
