Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Requested by uploader --Marrovi (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Jamen Somasu is not the author of this file nor is it in the public domain. File appears on this website. MicroX (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at the OTRS ticket and there is a lot of images mentioned, including this one. I believe all images should be looked at closely. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- You know what, the OTRS ticket was a forgery. This image was not mentioned at all in the email and I just speedied it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
it should just show the artist. the one who made that photo especially for me und just for such purposes is one of my close family. but if it bothers you in this way, please feel free to delete it. maybe i can put another one, i made myself, on the page or just leave it without one - it is not that important. many thanks und best wishes - Lukrezia
- Interesting. The photographer and copyrightholder do not need to be the person who push the button. If you have staged this photography, as statet; you are maybe\probably the artist. Maybe not. Who did the thinking? (verbally or nonverbally) Andrez1 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- there was no possibility to choose among the upload-possibilities provided. i thought, because it belongs to me, this option would be closest. obviously i erred.. but now i saw, that i just can write it in there afterwards. so now there's the name of the "photographer", hope it's alright like that. if still not satisfied, a delete would be alright. yes, i am the artist, and this is my photography, but it should just be an informative add for the biography. sorry for the inconvenience, but it needs a lot of time, until someone new has found and read everything on wikipedia to avoid making big mistakes .....
- "yes, i am the artist, and this is my photography". In my part of the world, if that is so, you are free to delgate to others to handle the camera. And still be the artist and copyrigtholder. But now it is deleted. pity. Andrez1 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete very unlikely "own work", as person depiced is the "owner". -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's an user image. Self portrait of the artist. here she is (self..) -portraited as a person with a diploma in portrait-painting. I assume she is higly capable of portaiting herself. Andrez1 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- However, this is a photo, not a painting. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- She is clearly abel to photograph herself in a manner known as selfportrait, it is a common practise among painters and photographers to do so. Then the owner of the photograph, having the copyright to the work, is the person depicted.
- However, this is a photo, not a painting. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- And the image is in use.Andrez1 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, it would be helpful to state this in the description. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- And the image is in use.Andrez1 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure thing. She does, do the math: (Deutsch: Künstlerporträtfoto Lukrezia*, Schlosspark Laxenburg , source: Own work, Autor: Lukrezia.)
- The user depicted in the image is active on wikipedia since today. There migth be other reasons to not have the page where the picture is in use. But i belive the picture itself is fundamentally OK. Andrez1 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Uploader request: It was uploaded and sent to DR the same day by the uploader/author; maybe she made a mistake and it is understandable.
obviously copyrighted --89.226.117.72 (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Copyright violation
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
copy of a copyrighted work Kimdime (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Henri Matisse died 1954. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong licence is copyrightes Arno.Ho (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
kept, uploader vandalised the description and license-information himself. --Ra'ike T C 10:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
low quality duplicate of File:Achyra rantalis 1327026.jpg — raeky (talk | edits) 02:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed; probably could have been/could be speeded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Dcoetzee: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: of File:Achyra rantalis 1327026.jpg
Previous nomination reason: Unsinniges, inhaltsloses Bild. Kept because it was in use. No longer in use. --99of9 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If not in use anymore, no reason to keep it.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a simple geometric shape User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, stated license is clearly wrong. Unless image is shown to be PD or free licensed for some other reason, Delete Infrogmation (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is still under Crown Copyright, so it is probably not PD for any reason at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. I'm new to this, will re-evaluate requirement and resubmit as necessary. Thanks guys. Delete User:Rustprooftom
- If it is under Crown Copyright, you may not resend the image here. The English Wikipedia can accept this image, but not here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. User:Rustprooftom
Deleted I guess, this is kind of uploaders request ;) abf «Cabale!» 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded wrong image, because the real Giant Wheel in Herseypark is a two-armed wheel --RepliCarter (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it could stay, but after a renaming, because the two-armed wheel was in the park until 2004, so this is a later wheel. - RepliCarter (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Info on the website of Hersheypark: this wheel was opened in 1997. So I suggest renaming instead of deleting: Giant Wheel Hersheypark 1997. - RepliCarter (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: please tag image with {{Rename}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. - RepliCarter (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Renamed to File:Giant Wheel Hersheypark 1997.jpg. ZooFari 04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
DR from speedy by User:Leoboudv which read "Please forgive me for filing a speedy delete on this very heavily used image but I thought there was no COM:FOP for modern works of art or architecture in South Africa. This stadium cannot be 70 years old. The first uncropped image is acceptable (since De Minimis applies) but in cropping deep into this image, the result would seem to be violating South Africa's laws on FOP--of which there is none! This image seems to me to be a non-free fair use image instead. Am I right or is there an expert on FOP here on Commons who knows this issue? At present I don't think Commons can use this image sadly." --KTo288 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment according to the disclaimer at Category:Buildings in South Africa this file is speedy deletable. However I'm not brave enough to do so.KTo288 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Related deletion reviews
--KTo288 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP for photos in South Africa, only for movies and TV broadcasts. Original uncropped photo should be fine. Lupo 20:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Strange copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. Until we have legal expertise that tells us otherwise, we have to assume there is no FOP in SA. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete-informed opinion is that there is no FOP in South africa.KTo288 (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -212.88.141.70 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like this was the same user as the one on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Port_de_Sóller_Hafeneinfahrt.JPG further down. (Same text, Same wrong name of DR page) --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason given -- Deadstar (msg) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No evidence for a copyright violation. GeorgHH • talk 12:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would not call this a simple design User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no assertion from the copyright holder that this badge has been released under this license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The badge is also far too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a simple design or geometric shape User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, license claim not applicable. Infrogmation (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this crest is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It should be transferred back to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair use licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The coa would probably be PD-old (looks like the coa of an order), but not the actual drawing. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Amkssg (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Uploader's Request: Please Delete.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this crest is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. It should be transferred back to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair use licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's Request: Image to be deleted.Amkssg (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Image description clearly states that this is a temporary statue. There is no freedom of panorama in the UK for works temporarily displayed in public. Therefore, this is a derivative of a copyrighted work. Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The 4th plinth of Trafalgar Square is a rotating, non-permanent display. -Nard the Bard 09:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
unknown source. the original uploader claim's it is fair use matanya • talk 10:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Image creation date is 1940 and I believe still under copyright in the US. It doesn't qualify as a PD image as it is licensed. Sandahl (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is unclear whether this is still under copyright in the US, since the original publication date is unknown and the image copyright renewals have never been digitalized. However, whether or not there is someone still collecting money for licensing a work has little to do with whether it's PD or not, especially with the complex rules the US has on works published between 1923 and 1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the original author of this photo. No longer wanted/needed on site. --Yper (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Properly licensed photo of a notable person, no reason to delete indicated. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That's not flickr. I agree with McFly.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Thirded. Good pictures, uploaded sometime ago, don't get deleted on author request.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above; useful image of notable person; I see no reason to delete. Infrogmation (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of [1] but color-oversaturated. No artistic intention, apparently. Unusable with the good original one already in Commons. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - bad duplicate, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - D´accord--El. (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Image taken inside of the RSFSR, published in a 2002 book. This does not make the image qualify for PD-Ukraine at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - in all probability, this is a Russian image, not a Ukrainian one. This is obviously still copyrighted in Russia, so it cannot be hosted on Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted images from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Image taken during the GPW, published in a 2002 book. This does not make the image qualify for PD-Ukraine at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - There's no reason to believe this isn't a Russian image, not Ukrainian. With no author information it cannot be determined that this image is PD. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted images from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
An AFP/Getty image, Argentine copyright law likely does not apply. --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The source country is not Argentina, but Germany. (Even if {{PD-AR-Photo}} were applicable, it clearly states that "date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it", and those have not been provided.) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as clear-cut crop/derivative of a copyrighted AFP/Getty Images photo. For too high risk for reusers to get sued by Getty. --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
For this image to be in the public domain in the Ukraine, the author must have died before 1951. Since we do not know who the author is, we cannot prove that s/he died before the cutoff. Yes, casualties on the Eastern Front were high, but this photo was taken at the end of the war; it's improbable that the author was killed in the last days of the war. It's actually possible the author is still alive.
More importantly, this image is not in the public domain in the United States, since it cannot satisfy the "life of the author +70" requirement. --Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- The US does not have a Life plus 70 rule at all when it comes to public domain terms, but the image needs to be published before Jan 1, 1946, for the image to be considered public domain in the USA. Not only we do not know the life dates of the author, but also when the actual publication of the photo is unknown. Until we know that, Delete. (Note, this is a lot of problems we have with the WW2 images tagged with this template.) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the life +70 term effects only items published after 1978, which this probably does not fall under. It likely falls under the pre-'78 cutoff, which is 95 years from date of publication/registry. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep: Look at the file history. It has been here since 2005. This image is used on 24 53 pages in 26 different projects. The source provided is valid. Just because the exact author is unknown does not mean it has to be deleted. Many pictures from world war 2 have authors unknown because they died. This image is from a website that contains public domain world war 2 photos. It is not a copyright violation just because the person who took the photo is unknown. The source is known and the source states that the photo was taken by an unknown solider. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright rules change, so even if the image is perfectly alright in 2005, it might not be alright in 2010. With Russia, the copyright rules changed that many of our WW2 images from the Russian side were deleted since those images were brought back into copyright. Also, if you look at http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212, it says many of the pictures are copyrighted and they are using it as much as legally possible under Russian copyright law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically, the Russian copyright law changed in 2008 to extended copyright protection to life +70. Without knowing when the author died, we cannot establish when it will enter the public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was photographed in May of 1945 so it already fails Template:PD-Russia-2008. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- This image is public domain in Ukraine not Russia. Ukraine officially became a separate country in 1993 so the Russian rules do not apply. So this image is exempt from Russian copyright law but under Ukraine law which states in section 1 article 22:
- It was photographed in May of 1945 so it already fails Template:PD-Russia-2008. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically, the Russian copyright law changed in 2008 to extended copyright protection to life +70. Without knowing when the author died, we cannot establish when it will enter the public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"Article 22.
It shall be permissible for libraries and archives, the activities of which are not aimed, directly or indirectly, at generating profit, to reproduce reprographically, without the consent of the author or other copyright holder, one copy of a work, subject to the following:
(1) when a reproduced work is a separately published article and other small works or excerpts from written works (except for computer software and databases), with or without illustrations, and when the reproduction is made upon individuals’ requests, provided that:
(a) a library or archive has sufficient reason to believe that such a copy will be used for the purposes of education, training or private research;
(b) reproduction of the work is a one-off, not a regular, event;
(c) there are no restrictions on the part of collective management organizations concerning the terms and conditions for producing such copies;
(2) when a reproduction is made to preserve or replace a lost, damaged or unusable copy in the library or archive, or to renew a lost, damaged or unusable copy from the collection of a similar library or archive, and it is impossible to obtain such a copy by other means, and when reproduction of the work is a one-off, not a regular, event."
As wikipedia is an encyclopedia, wikipedia falls under this category. Ukraine also has a 70 year copyright expiration date after the author's death. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Correction: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That means all of the content, including images, needs to be either in the public domain or licensed in such a manner that complies with the GDFL and CC licenses that cover the project. Article 22 certainly does not authorize commercial use, while both of the Wikimedia licenses do. All you have done here is highlight another reason why this image is incompatible with our project. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's text and user created works are under this license. Non user created images, photos and other media that could be under copyright are not under this license. They are under whatever their own license is and are under fair use and used with permission. Permission can not be obtained because the author is most likely near death, if not dead. So if public domain cannot be claimed because the exact author is unknown then it can be claimed under Article 22. As it says, archives, like encyclopedias, can use media without the permission of the author providing it is limited and it is not for profit. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read this, specifically the line "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well [emphasis mine]." This is one of these discussions. And where did you come up with the erroneous assumption that the licenses only cover the text we post? Every image we host must be compliant with these licenses, either through being in the public domain, licensed in a compatible license, or have a valid claim for fair use (though the last only applies to en.wiki).
- Your point about the author being near death or dead is irrelevant. We don't know who it is, so seeking permission is impossible. It is equally impossible to determine when the image will enter the PD in Russia. The only possible method to ascertaining this is finding out whether it was published (read: not created, but made available to the public—i.e., in a book, newspaper, etc.) before 1978. If that's the case, then in the US it will enter the public domain 95 years after that date. If it wasn't published until after 1978, then we're back to trying to establish when the author died.
- Lastly, like I just said, all of the content hosted on the Commons must be available for commercial use (per the terms of the CCAS and GDFL licenses); any restriction on the use of the images is a dead giveaway that the content is inappropriate for Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are right it dies say "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded". This image was uploaded in 2005 so this does not apply. It has been grandfathered. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The full quote is "For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: * As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. "" EDP is for fair use and Commons does not accept fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alpha, did you even bother reading what I said? I quite clearly typed and existing media under such licenses . Hopefully you won't miss it this time, now that it's bolded and italicized... Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The full quote is "For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: * As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. "" EDP is for fair use and Commons does not accept fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are right it dies say "As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded". This image was uploaded in 2005 so this does not apply. It has been grandfathered. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's text and user created works are under this license. Non user created images, photos and other media that could be under copyright are not under this license. They are under whatever their own license is and are under fair use and used with permission. Permission can not be obtained because the author is most likely near death, if not dead. So if public domain cannot be claimed because the exact author is unknown then it can be claimed under Article 22. As it says, archives, like encyclopedias, can use media without the permission of the author providing it is limited and it is not for profit. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Authorship is not known, so there is no possibility that this image can be assumed public domain under Ukraine law. Arguments about how long the image has been hosted by Commons, and how many articles use it, have no relevance to its copyright status. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Bink and nom. Obvious copyright violation. Use on other projects != not a copyright violation. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Soviet tanks in Berlin? Why would you even think this was a Ukranian as opposed to Russian image? -Nard the Bard 18:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no information about the author (could be Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, etc..) or where and when it was first published. Without these pieces of information, it's not possible to verify the copyright status. --19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the exact source of the file [[2]].
- And where did battlefield.ru get the image? The image is copyrighted in Russia, this has been proved without a shadow of a doubt. Drop it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note, reverted a non-admin closure[3] by User:Alpha Quadrant. Non-admin closures are exceptional cases reserved for times when there is absolutely no doubt as to the outcome. That is not the case here. -Nard the Bard 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ukraine it part of USSR, because it not needed proof about Ukraine nacionality. And, like say template: "It was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date" - that mean, if are author unknow, information about publication date it enough!
- May 1945 was when it was taken, not sure when it was published. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
For "Zscout370" nice, nice... if you take that problem this way, your must deleted 75% of files hosted on commmons... --77.48.29.30 18:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then they should be deleted. Commons requires definitive proof that the image is public domain. That has not been provided here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files by User Friendshipimagens
[edit]Friendshipimagens (talk · contributions · Statistics)
- File:BandaFriendship.jpg
- File:Drums.jpg
- File:Fans Friendship Never Die.jpg
- File:Fnd renan.jpg
- File:FnD.jpg
- File:Friendship Never Die 01.jpg
- File:Friendship never die.jpg
- File:Friendship Never DiE.jpg
- File:Friendship never.jpg
- File:Friendship no Opera Hall.jpg
- File:Friendship show do gloria.jpg
- File:Friendships2.jpg
- File:Guitarsfnd.jpg
- File:Imagem016.jpg
- File:Imagem0282.jpg
- File:Imagem043.jpg
- File:Imagem045.jpg
- File:Imagem051.jpg
- File:Imagem077.jpg
- File:Lucas fnd.jpg
- File:Luh01.jpg
- File:Nessa Roh.jpg
- File:OgAAAAgXI-NmxVwBjFTBdr1kN0G48so3xC6m9Bkd5gNiHMdEDT98cmXIFg8UfT1wxfKxf7jUYcP3PZB-fDbDNhRJubwAm1T1UNfm2ckDiLcyYCEDOujYVEyw4d10.jpg
- File:OgAAACKRk5lni4IIhkeTOe0zI qsSZusaXT7www6Keju5eSCgx7d5KAeNzVZzkGjKC2pvXhaPyUGfelpBeiVMnUhwsgAm1T1UATFrWNzkAB43yj6FhPiBM41KFPP.jpg
- File:OgAAAIDvVsWOLb60pSP0Pjfeyv9PgOGEgW03VATCf969xec0ooSCvv 5hnOzTbH-diHjHH9i1nmQo8POkNj1I0qSAT0Am1T1UE2MnDcEyZBZSdY2pAabbtSopGzM.jpg
- File:OgAAAKgSf6uMZidfdkymGrsL a9e7fwmYYePnyIbiMXui-HuRv59qRfY4fMs2-bUmTzZuNfsfXL06CBP2yhc7qHt3oYAm1T1UOCHmYj yJCqZWx2rHqHnMpd7L8F.jpg
- File:Opera HAll com Friendship Never Die.jpg
- File:Opera HALL Friendship Never Die.jpg
- File:Phe fnd.jpg
- File:Phe roH.jpg
- File:Phe01.jpg
- File:Phe02.jpg
- File:Reh fnd.jpg
- File:Reh01.jpg
- File:Ro fnd2.jpg
- File:Roh (Friendship), Danilo(ForFun), Luh ( Friendship).jpg
- File:Roh.jpg
All uploads by User:Friendshipimagens are for promotion / self promotion only. I found no files used in a wiki project.
This deletion request is also for Category:Friendship Never Die (band).
See also uploaders user page at pt:Usuário Discussão:Banda Friendship Never Die --GeorgHH • talk 18:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Better than other bands, anyway. Some of the pictures are quite good. But it's just self promotion, apparently.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment At least this one is labeled "Rodriggo Silva", whose flickrstream is all rights reserved. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted all for beeing out of scope abf «Cabale!» 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)