Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/02/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Please RevDel. Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- A brand Twitter is copyrighted it's right, but for use icone see here official site Web before. thx--Notrons (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
undo, don't do it [www.twitter.com/logo read about use].--Notrons (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Copyrighted content is not allowed on Commons. If you revert the file again or remove the DR notice again I will ask that you be blocked as a vandal. Fry1989 eh? 01:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Read Twitter usage guidelines before. Your argument is this one is "Copyrighted", but the old icon imposes too then. if you refuse discussion for you the threat is not a solution.--Notrons (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: History cleaned. INeverCry 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope (damn, you should use your photoshop skills at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop! :-) ) Indeedous (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of magazine pages, and some logos, fair-use Motopark (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair use; also requested by uploader. odder (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This image has a visible water mark (signature all posters). I think that you incurred at least three violations of regulations: promotion, possible violation of rights of exploitation of image, and lack of quality. So I request deletion, with all my respect to the user who contributed it. 81.33.167.141 10:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- we are marking it here with template {{watermark}} to remove later. (And one of earlier versions is without it). It is 15th century image, and according to Commons rules - PD Art. And quality is OK for web. --Shakko (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. By Shakko--Хомелка (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion. If there is a better version it should be uploaded under a different name. Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy vio: http://cdn1.appleinsider.com/13.04.16-Koum.jpg NiTenIchiRyu (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy vio: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/thumb/msid-30714257,width-300,resizemode-4/whatsappceo.jpg NiTenIchiRyu (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
File:The hipster in this photo feels he is more of a hipster than those who actually consider themselves to be hipsters- 2014-02-21 13-37.png
[edit]Either a joke at someone else's expense, or a photo with heavy enough watermarking to be of no use to Commons. Also it's a photo of a CD cover. McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism/attack image Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
from http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/images/id/14611/category/parties/type/view/imageid/1762893/ (Copyright © 2014 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved) 4ing (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission has been added to image Denniss (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by McZusatz as no permission (no permission since). But permission is clearly present; unsure if he meant that the permission on Flickr is dubious. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess we need OTRS-permission. Having a look at the "EXIF" data: http://www.flickr.com/photos/112919395@N07/12350630303/meta/ , the upload dates and the quote "Wikipedia can use this picture." either indicates Flickwashing or insufficient permission. --McZusatz (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good call. I say
Delete, blacklist the Flickr user and give the uploader here an absolutely last warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you don't want to keep the picture. This one hasn't been stolen from anywhere ! --MirandaKeurr (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're not doing yourself any favors by perpetuating this. Please contribute constructively; if you do not, but continue to tell lies, you may see your account blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you don't want to keep the picture. This one hasn't been stolen from anywhere ! --MirandaKeurr (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good call. I say
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
there is three reasons for deletion request:
- Although the image has been uploaded after emailing the foundation by OTRS system, there is no proof that the mentioned author (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is the real author, the image has no metadata proves that the image has been taken by camera not taken from the internet. i see it's so easy to upload an image on my Facebook account, claim that it's my work, and email OTRS to upload it to Wikimedia projects. i ask for any evidence to prove that Asmaa is the image author.
- The image is so close up of a dead body (bodies). i don't know if "respect for the dead" is a policy concern, but the image is really too gruesome and doesn't respect dead sanctity.
- The image is concerned about a controversial subject about clashes in Rabia square in Cairo, that's why i think we should be more strict in policies enforcement, in order not to allow using of anonymous images to prove a particular viewpoint in such controversial articles, i want Wikimedia projects to be away of the media war which happening nowadays in Egypt.--Ahmed SPi (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment Imho, points 2 and 3 are not relevant here. See COM:NPOV and COM:CENSOR. BrightRaven (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Author is (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is is the owner of the image. and she already confirmed that by OTRS , and there no proof that there is another owner of the images --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead bodies in RABIA Massacre (3).jpg Tarawneh (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
there is three reasons for deletion request:
- Although the image has been uploaded after emailing the foundation by OTRS system, there is no proof that the mentioned author (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is the real author, the image has no metadata proves that the image has been taken by camera not taken from the internet. i see it's so easy to upload an image on my Facebook account, claim that it's my work, and email OTRS to upload it to Wikimedia projects. i ask for any evidence to prove that Asmaa is the image author.
- The image is so close up of a dead body (bodies). i don't know if "respect for the dead" is a policy concern, but the image is really too gruesome and doesn't respect dead sanctity.
- The image is concerned about a controversial subject about clashes in Rabia square in Cairo, that's why i think we should be more strict in policies enforcement, in order not to allow using of anonymous images to prove a particular viewpoint in such controversial articles, i want Wikimedia projects to be away of the media war which happening nowadays in Egypt.--Ahmed SPi (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Author is (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is is the owner of the image. and she already confirmed that by OTRS , and there no proof that there is another owner of the images --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead bodies in RABIA Massacre (3).jpg Tarawneh (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
there is three reasons for deletion request:
- Although the image has been uploaded after emailing the foundation by OTRS system, there is no proof that the mentioned author (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is the real author, the image has no metadata proves that the image has been taken by camera not taken from the internet. i see it's so easy to upload an image on my Facebook account, claim that it's my work, and email OTRS to upload it to Wikimedia projects. i ask for any evidence to prove that Asmaa is the image author.
- The image is so close up of a dead body (bodies). i don't know if "respect for the dead" is a policy concern, but the image is really too gruesome and doesn't respect dead sanctity.
- The image is concerned about a controversial subject about clashes in Rabia square in Cairo, that's why i think we should be more strict in policies enforcement, in order not to allow using of anonymous images to prove a particular viewpoint in such controversial articles, i want Wikimedia projects to be away of the media war which happening nowadays in Egypt.--Ahmed SPi (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Author is (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is is the owner of the image. and she already confirmed that by OTRS , and there no proof that there is another owner of the images --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead bodies in RABIA Massacre (3).jpg Tarawneh (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
there is three reasons for deletion request:
- Although the image has been uploaded after emailing the foundation by OTRS system, there is no proof that the mentioned author (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is the real author, the image has no metadata proves that the image has been taken by camera not taken from the internet. i see it's so easy to upload an image on my Facebook account, claim that it's my work, and email OTRS to upload it to Wikimedia projects. i ask for any evidence to prove that Asmaa is the image author.
- The image is so close up of a dead body (bodies). i don't know if "respect for the dead" is a policy concern, but the image is really too gruesome and doesn't respect dead sanctity.
- The image is concerned about a controversial subject about clashes in Rabia square in Cairo, that's why i think we should be more strict in policies enforcement, in order not to allow using of anonymous images to prove a particular viewpoint in such controversial articles, i want Wikimedia projects to be away of the media war which happening nowadays in Egypt.--Ahmed SPi (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Author is (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is is the owner of the image. and she already confirmed that by OTRS , and there no proof that there is another owner of the images --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Asmaa proved the ownership by providing the full-sized picture of a trimmed version published under her name in a "Human rights article" in Rased website. She was approached by the Arabic Wikipedia community to release her photos under free license do the photos can be used om commons and other Wikimedia projects.
- The file falls within COM:PS
- Commons is not censored --Tarawneh (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Commons is not censored Tarawneh (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Serra at a live Wednesday Night Intensity taping confronting Morbid after turning down the lights and attacking him in October 2013- 2014-01-26 18-11.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo with no metadata. Very blurry, nothing recognizable here. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
there is three reasons for deletion request:
- Although the image has been uploaded after emailing the foundation by OTRS system, there is no proof that the mentioned author (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is the real author, the image has no metadata proves that the image has been taken by camera not taken from the internet. i see it's so easy to upload an image on my Facebook account, claim that it's my work, and email OTRS to upload it to Wikimedia projects. i ask for any evidence to prove that Asmaa is the image author.
- The image is so close up of a dead body (bodies). i don't know if "respect for the dead" is a policy concern, but the image is really too gruesome and doesn't respect dead sanctity.
- The image is concerned about a controversial subject about clashes in Rabia square in Cairo, that's why i think we should be more strict in policies enforcement, in order not to allow using of anonymous images to prove a particular viewpoint in such controversial articles, i want Wikimedia projects to be away of the media war which happening nowadays in Egypt.--Ahmed SPi (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Author is (Asmaa Anwar Shehata) is is the owner of the image. and she already confirmed that by OTRS , and there no proof that there is another owner of the images --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead bodies in RABIA Massacre (3).jpg Tarawneh (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
File:COCALARUL SUPREM = Simion Cristian Neculai ,născut in județul Neamț , orașul Roman pe data de 10 Mai 1978---http---youtu-be-xV-cLCf76XU 2014-01-25 13-59.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted The Haz talk 06:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Name sadequllah ahmadzai -Studied - haza Omar farooq high school nowshera & SSG school peshawar -Now - student of iiui-Mob no - 03159424218 & 03077161044-email sadequllahsaa@yahoo-com, m-sadeq56@gmail-com-Goog 2014-01-29 00-30.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be replaced by File:Wiki LivingROMP2.png by the same user. Leyo 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: has been replaced by an equivalent by the same uploader. File:Wiki ROMP.jpg is kept because it is different, showing a contrasting process. Ed (Edgar181) 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be replaced by File:Wiki Anion2.png by the same user. Leyo 17:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Das Bild dient keinem enzyklopädischen Zweck (und ist - gelinde gesagt - geschmacklos). Rolf Acker (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- + 1, genau. Außerdem dürfte URV vorliegen, da die Darstellung ein Kunstprojekt von Gunter Demnig persifliert. Unbedingt löschen. --Der wahre Jakob (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- was sowieso nur eine Varinate, kann weg. finde SLA nicht--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
{{speedy|copyright violation}}Dumilk56 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Source says that this painting was painted by Choi Dae-myeong(최대명), a descendant of general Choi Young and South Korean veteran general. His pseudonym 于心(우심, Woo-shim) is seen on the left lower corner. A veteran general and painter Choi Dae-myeong is still alive(http://www.kado.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=655183). So it's not public domain. Leedkmn (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
no encyclopedic value, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible personality rights issue. Leyo 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
personal unused photo: out of scope /St1995 18:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It has been established on Wikipedia that this album does not meet notability requirements. Etrangere (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://journeys2remember.blogspot.de/2014_01_01_archive.html A.Savin 20:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: just an uploader's personal work created to symbolize an Argentine subculture. - Fma12 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The Machin Head (1964) is still under Crown Copyright. Licence is wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
wrong title MagnusBB (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Use {{Rename}}. INeverCry 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
And:
- File:Trumpeter Swans.jpg
- File:SS Lemoyne.jpg
- File:The Druggist.jpg
- File:The Cleaners.jpg
- File:The Post Office.jpg
- File:Water Trough.jpg
- File:Winter Harbour.jpg
- File:Wye Marsh.jpg
- File:Woolen Mill.jpg
- File:Saw Mills.jpg
- File:Runners of the Woods.jpg
- File:Rediscovery Ste Marie.jpg
- File:Norman Rockwell.jpg
- File:Midland Railway Corp 1.jpg
- File:Midland Railway Corp 2.jpg
- File:Midland Harbour.jpg
- File:Lumber Mill.jpg
- File:Midland Attractions.jpg
- File:Local Photographers.jpg
- File:Livery Stables.jpg
- File:James Playfair.jpg
- File:HM Schooner Bee.jpg
- File:Great Lakes Cruises.jpg
- File:Fishing in Midland Harbour.jpg
- File:Canadian Guides.jpg
- File:Brebeuf Lighthouse.jpg
- File:Bourgeois Motors.jpg
Reproductions of paintings, which the uploader says were painted by artist Fred Lenz (1931-2001). No evidence that the paintings are free. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
COM:DW of the model. LGA talkedits 08:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: UK has freedom of panorama but the object is not in permanent display. 86.30.200.63 09:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notaility. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a logo of an organization which asserts copyright on its website. It cannot be hosted here because it needs a fair use rationale, and would therefore need to be uploaded to a relevant local wiki. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notaility. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a still (with logo from the tv-network). No proof of permission given. Ronn (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
COM:DW of the model. LGA talkedits 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" (CD cover) 91.65.69.3 16:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Includes a painting by Fred Lenz (1931-2001), Robert Lenz, Stephen Lenz and Michele Van Maurik. The last three are living. No evidence that the painting is free. Does not seem to qualify for "de minimis". -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
"own work" ???? 91.65.69.3 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.65.69.3 14:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Fungai peta is a Zimbabwean who move to the United States in 2009- He graduated from Kilgore college in Texas in 2013- 2014-01-26 10-57.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This file of 1964 from Italy is a copyright violation on commons 91.65.69.3 09:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Image grabbed from internet according to description. No date, no author, no source. According to the subject, this picture dates from the first half of the 20th century, but it is not enough to claim it is in the PD. 2001:6A8:3500:B00B:9923:B85B:2115:B08B 09:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Foodpackages are considered DW of commercial packages, therefore it cant be free Hangsna (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Subject lacks notability Etrangere (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Subject lacks notability Etrangere (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Feels like a press image ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Subject lacks notability Etrangere (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Likely a still from tv, no proof for permission given. Ronn (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File not in use Etrangere (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This logo is on Commons in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be out of scope. Orphaned and nonsense description. Leyo 10:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Julian Wiszniewski Oribhabhor urodzony 7 kwietnia 2011 roku w Warszawie- Swoją karierę zaczą mając 10 dni- Mały aktor również reklamuje sklep smyk i reserved- Julian miał też grać w filmie ,,Prawo Ag 2014-01-26 12-35.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Strong suspicion of copyvio Aga (d) 13:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This image appears very similar to other images of Matilda Media, which appears to have changed name but did assert copyright on its website *here). The file cannot be hosted on Commons because it needs a fair use rationale due to being a logo. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File not in use. Etrangere (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This monument was made in 2007. I guess that the author was not dead 1944. No FoP in France. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Text document with line drawing, unused and out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, but only for copyright reasons (admitedly not own work), not scope. If properly licensed, this image would in clearly in scope considering its contents, and argueably so considering its contents’s format (I’d prefer, for documentation of its use, a photo showing this on a demonatraror’s sign or some such). Nominator might also consider this other image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This picture was prepared by myself. And there seem to be some contradictions within "Project scope/Neutral point of view" and "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". --Toksoz (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Of course there are “contradictions” — an encyclopedia and a media repository serve diffent goals are are guided by different principles. NPOV, while is of paramount importance for all wikipedias, is almost irrelevant for Commons (in what concerns the content of the media we hiost). -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957). Eleassar (t/p) 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Nikole Roizo 9 años y un exito empezo el 2004- Ella dobla una serie de dibujos animados y compositora para cantante sus canciones todavia no las ha publicado pero son estas Hay personas,Siempre y alegremente- 2014-01-28 19-21.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot from this video: http://www.jaguda.com/2011/06/12/new-video-michael-word-pop-sugar-ft-muna/ Ytoyoda (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a logo belonging to a company which appears to have changed name recently. The last archived version of their website (11 August 2013) asserts copyright and there is no indication of copyright having lapsed. If it is to be used on w:Matilda Media, then it needs to be uploaded locally. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rinku-Ghosh/491040807603550?viewer_id=0 A.Savin 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a commercially produced publicity shot. Doubt the uploader is the photographer. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a commercially produced publicity shot. Doubt the uploader is the photographer. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted monument from 1945, and post-WWII apartment building. Eleassar (t/p) 11:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep tipized building and statue are far enough and statue is out of focus. --Sporti (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with the nom Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
An SVG of a photograph and it doesn't have any educational value over the original photo (which is also here). The Haz talk 06:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Right before PSG-Marseille away- Najeh (Fahad) ALShammary & Nicholas outside Charles De Gaulle international airport Paris- 2014-01-27 03-05.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
fair use material, see t6ext in the picture Motopark (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The uploader claims that the image comes from Facebook[dead link]. Unfortunately, we are missing permission from the Facebook user. Stefan4 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that the sculpture is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Ronja Bjurling-Sångare-dansare-Favoritfärg- rosa och grön--Favoritdjur- hund-Favoritmat- smörgåstårta-Gillar- lagamat, umgås med kompisar, sjunga, dansa, skriva låtar och göra danssteg--Ogillar- mycke 2014-01-28 07-50.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: not an official sign in the sense of Art. 9 of the Slovene Copyright Act. Eleassar (t/p) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per the same reason as before: not an official sign. There is no evidence that the image of the hair dryer is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Souâd CARPON EL HARRASSI as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: i want to delete my photo| Souâd CARPON EL HARRASSI INeverCry 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per CU, Souâd CARPON and Souâd CARPON EL HARRASSI are the same editor. INeverCry 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete it is a low quality image, and unless there are articles about this person it is out of scope. --Jarekt (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I confirm Souâd CARPON and Souâd CARPON EL HARRASSI are myself : it is the same editor. Souâd CARPON EL HARRASSI is the true id now.
Can You delete both photos please ? Thank You very much
Deleted: out of scope Jarekt (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://www.newswala.com/News-in-Images/News-Gallery-2014-01-26/Glimpses-of-Republic-Day-Celebrations-in-New-Delhi-101531.html A.Savin 20:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://journeys2remember.blogspot.de/2014_01_01_archive.html A.Savin 20:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:This article is about a rapper part of a group called CB4- The group originated in down South, New Orleans, La- 2014-01-31 11-55.jpeg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://journeys2remember.blogspot.de/2014_01_01_archive.html A.Savin 20:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that the shrine and the chapel are in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Its look the picture is from the same source as this picture that was upload to he:wiki saying that the photographer is Nahum Asis. The user upload some pictures in he:wiki with copyvio. Hanay (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014022310009945. After discussion with the uploader, we have an understanding. He is the original photographer. He did not understood the license. Hanay (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Wilson Andres Cardenas Garcia Bocalista de la banda los kakos- Este joven con tan solo 18 años de edad ya tiene su propia banda musical es es un canta auntor profesional este talentoso joven Lojano tambien es 2014-02-03 09-29.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:פאטקאבלוצ'ניק- --אדם שערכו שווה לזה של סמרטוט רצפה, ללא עמוד שדרה כאשר מוכן לעשות כל דבר לרצות את בת זוגתו ( חשוב להדג 2014-01-26 19-30.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is the same picture that was upload to he:wiki this picture saying that the photographer is Nahum Asis. The user upload some pictures in he:wiki with copyvio Hanay (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014022310009945. After discussion with the uploader, we have an understanding. He is the original photographer. He did not understood the license. Hanay (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope /St1995 11:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
File:אופק רון -אופק רון נולדה ב-3 במאי 1999-נולדה להורים יפית ופיני רון -אופק זכתה בשלוש פעמים באליפות בארץ ברכיבה על סוסים - 2014-02-03 09-04.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate except for file type, of correctly named file. Move or delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GrandstreamRussia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of advertisement. No evidence or permission.
- File:Obama grandstream.jpg
- File:Romney grandstrem.jpg
- File:История развития.jpg
- File:Gxv3672.jpg
- File:Ucm6100.jpg
- File:Gxp2160.jpg
- File:Dp715 710.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Freshman404 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots of software of unclear license status.
- File:Banner008.jpg
- File:Banner007.jpg
- File:Banner006.jpg
- File:Banner004.jpg
- File:Banner005.jpg
- File:Banner001.jpg
- File:Banner002.jpg
- File:Banner003.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I use those picture for describing How you could make a banner, and also I don't think there is any problem with copyright issues.
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Freshman404 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Normally these would be fine, the images being from Tasnim News and all. But these are from a ceremony celebrating a TV show. And these specific photos have giant derivative works of that TV show in the background. I don't believe that Tasnim has the right to release images from the TV show as well. I could be wrong on this though. One of them may be cropable depending on what you actually want to focus on. The other three, not so much.
- File:Shahrzad final ceremony-50.jpg
- File:Shahrzad final ceremony-47.jpg
- File:Shahrzad final ceremony-45.jpg
- File:Shahrzad final ceremony-23.jpg
Majora (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete That's OK. I filed one DR on another image sourced to Tasnim where a big screen dominated 80-85% of the photo. . Unfortunately the uploaders upload everything from tasnim. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jiangyinme23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s)/.
- File:Briquetting press 2.jpg
- File:Briquetting press 1.JPG
- File:Briquetting press 3.jpg
- File:Metal baler 2.jpg
- File:Metal baler 1.jpg
- File:Metal baler 3.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete: I checked two and Tineye said they had been published before on other sites. Rybec (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, photomontages are based on unfree works
- File:El Secreto de La Princesa Leah. Magic tale.jpg
- File:La Flor de Mi Vida Muere de Noche.jpg
- File:Mala y Modesta.jpg
- File:El Daycare.jpg
- File:El Secreto de La Princesa Leah.jpg
- File:Amor sin Cara.jpg
- File:Dos veces Princesa.jpg
91.65.69.3 09:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khuon dina (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Acer Computer.jpg
- File:Don bosco kep school.jpg
- File:រូបក្តាមនូវកែប.jpg
- File:Sambor-prey-kok.jpg
- File:ពេលវេលា.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abhishek.chauhan885 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:ABHISHEK CHAUHAN MANAJIT.jpg
- File:ABHISHEK CHAUHAN.jpg
- File:MANAJIT.jpg
- File:Manajit abhishek chauhan.jpg
- File:ABHISHEKCHAUHANCHIRAIYAKOTMAU.jpg
- File:Abhishek chauhan.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)
[edit]I have deleted several pictures by this uploader as copyright violations or derivative works. Given this I am not sure we can trust them. In this 1303 files are old postcards which are claimed as "I the copyright holder", suspicious borders, probable FoP violations, etc. I grant you a lot of these images are likely perfectly fine, but given there are some which state (photos: Internet) I think we must apply PRP. On second thoughts, a mass deletion is probably an overreaction, but the user's images certainly need a going through to weed out the problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
| Full list of files |
|---|
* File:Peintres Tiers zodiacal 3.jpg
|
-mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Ugh, there's no way to give a suitable blanket vote to this DR — the lot is too vast and heterogenous to be dealt like this. I tried to make a few sectorial DRs for the most obvious cases, but it is but a small dent. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unsuitable format of text only tables, even if content could be considered on topic: Lists of celebrities sorted by what amounts to be birthdate? Better have it as wikitext tables on pages, linked and sourced from the respective biographical categories (if at all).
- File:Peintres Tiers zodiacal 3.jpg
- File:Peintres Tiers zodiacal 2.jpg
- File:Peintres Tiers zodiacal 1.jpg
- File:Cinéastes tiers zodiacal 3.jpg
- File:Cinéastes tiers zodiacal 2.jpg
- File:Cinéastes tiers zodiacal 1.jpg
- File:Tennis astro.gif
- File:Chanteurs astro.gif
- File:Jazz Zodiaque 6 premiers signes.jpg
-- Tuválkin ✉ 03:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
about tables
[edit]I tried to introduce them on wikipedia, but they were deleted as unsignificant.I know that every person is much more than just the sign where the sun is and that everyone is much more like a puzzle which has to be built by a qualified astrolog, which I'm not, but I think it may be interesant to discover a tendance of the characters. - About the others pictures, which I took myself, I think they correspond with the purpose of the encyclopedy. - Sincerely - --Martin Greslou (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)
[edit]OK, I'm withdrawing the other DR, but these say "Photos: Internet". No source for the images.
- File:Acteurs 12 Poissons.jpg
- File:Acteurs 10 Capricorne.jpg
- File:Acteurs 09 Sagittaire.jpg
- File:Acteurs 07 Balance.jpg
- File:Acteurs 05 Lion.jpg
- File:Acteurs 04 Cancer.jpg
- File:Acteurs 03 Gémeaux.jpg
- File:Acteurs 02 Taureau.jpg
- File:Acteurs 01 Bélier.jpg
- File:Acteurs 08 Scorpion.jpg
-mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Text documents which should be replaced with wiki tables.
- File:@Pop Rock Chanson2.jpg
- File:@Pop Rock Chanson1.jpg
- File:@Jazz2.jpg
- File:@Jazz1.jpg
- File:@Musique classique.jpg
- File:@Cineastes4.jpg
- File:@Cineastes3.jpg
- File:@Cineastes2.jpg
- File:@Cineastes1.jpg
- File:@Écrivains3.jpg
- File:@Écrivains2.jpg
- File:@Écrivains1.jpg
- File:@Stylistes.jpg
- File:Politiciens 2.jpg
- File:Politiciens 1.jpg
- File:Religion-philosophie.jpg
- File:Architects.jpg
- File:Savants.jpg
- File:Explorateurs.jpg
- File:Photographes.jpg
- File:Sculpteurs.jpg
- File:Sportsmen Sportswomen.jpg
- File:Acteurs ce cinéma.jpg
- File:Actrices de cinéma.jpg
- File:Peintres wikipedia.jpg
- File:Personnalités wikipedia 3.jpg
- File:Personnalités wikipedia 2.jpg
- File:Personnalités wikipedia 1.jpg
- File:Politiciens.jpg
- File:Jazz Zodique six derniers signes.jpg
- File:Acteurs de cinéma.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. JPGs of text are much less useful than wikitables and are absolutely contrary to policy, see COM:SCOPE. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and Jim. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, idem — Racconish Tk 14:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)
[edit]Tabular data in simple text.
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Verseau.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe des Poissons.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Capricorne.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Sagittaire.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Scorpion.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe de la Balance.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe de la Vierge.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Lion.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Cancer.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Taureau.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe du Bélier.jpg
- File:Ecrivains du signe des Gémeaux.jpg
-- Tuválkin ✉ 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. As I said above, JPGs of text are much less useful than wikitables and are absolutely contrary to policy, see COM:SCOPE. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elena De La Cruz (talk · contribs)
[edit]This "own work" is a painting by Vasilyev http://www.abcgallery.com/V/vasilyev/vasilyev35.html . The uploader has added a wrongspelled book title and has put in es:El alma del hombre bajo el socialismo
91.65.69.3 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Collection of book covers and promo photo. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Srostersondhane.jpg
- File:Abriefhistoryofreligions.jpg
- File:Kenoeaimittachar.jpg
- File:Sottobhut.jpg
- File:Md. Mostafijur Rahman.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Violinistcavalli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Деловой журнал "Тюмень" (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios, out of scope, self-promotion
- File:ОБЛОЖКА TMNWOMAN.jpg
- File:ИНФОГРАФИКА TMNWOMAN.jpg
- File:ИНФОГРАФИКА TMN.jpg
- File:ОБЛОЖКА TMN.jpg
/St1995 12:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted monument from 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep - cropped the monument.--Sporti (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: image has been modified, resubmit if necessary — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Bad format for the content format (text in JPG); unsuitable content format for Commons (tabular data in simple text); content of irrelevant nature, bound to become obsolete (number of wikipedias with articles about each listed subject); bad formatting (technicholor formatting for no good reason, unrelated items paird on the same column just because they have the same “score”, etc.). -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I should disclose that this file has had a use in fr:Liste d'architectes, which I removed. This file had been added to this article/annex by its creator, Martin Greslou, in a way that I find gratuitous (for this image suffers for the issues stated in the nomination, making it unuseful in any Wikipedia), completed with a legend in English. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I’m surprised that Marcus Cyron took himself to the trouble of renaming this file without noticing how much off-scope it is. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Only because you are saying it is out of scope it makes everything not more true. Keep, there's no valid cause for deletion. Reflecting our own work is 100% in project scope. Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Don't see its use as it cannot be updated. Much more useful to heave the list as a wikitable with wikilinks. --ELEKHHT 02:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: indicative consensus, must be realistically useful for an educational purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, when I see the category, it could be en:Yash_(actor)... --Indeedous (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence for not being within scope — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
"creada por mi" ????? 91.65.69.3 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image is clealry taken from a book, without proper credit given to its author and likely without being freely licensed. KDS444 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image is clealry taken from a book, without proper credit given to its author and likely without being freely licensed. KDS444 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculptural work, takes a sizable part of the image. Eleassar (t/p) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - doesn't look like sculptural work. --Sporti (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's of the same type as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vleugels Florentijn Hofman 2006.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't suppose those birdhouses would be tilted at those crazy angles, if they were meant to shelter birds. Rybec (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a winter protection of fountains in Ljubljana and it is also intended to give shelter to birds. It is a form of conceptual art by Prostorožke. They created a "bird town", each house being named after a bird that can be found in Ljubljana.[1][2] --Eleassar (t/p) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Thebirdhouses are not copyrightablebut in this specific arrangement they form a sculptural work. (Sorry I stole your tekst Eleassar). This is a scuplture made by an wel know artist. Natuur12 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted protection of a fountain. Eleassar (t/p) 14:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - fountain is not visible. --Sporti (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but the protection is also an original creative work and thus copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the sculptural work takes the major part of the image. Eleassar (t/p) 14:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - doesn't look like sculptural work. --Sporti (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's of the same type as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vleugels Florentijn Hofman 2006.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Thebirdhouses are not copyrightablebut in this specific arrangement they form a sculptural work. (Sorry I stole your tekst Eleassar). This is a scuplture made by an wel know artist. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a Commons:Derivative works of a commercial packaging. I dont think that can be free. Hangsna (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japp.jpg and i think that user:Emmyhed and User:Emelieelu is the same person uploading similar pictures. /Hangsna (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Adding File:Banana Skids (wikipedia).jpg, also the only upload of a user with the same camera. /Hangsna (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also the user Karlssonhanna uses the same camera and uploaded a picture now nominated for deletion. These users have only done one upload and oen edit (adding the pictures) on SVWP. /Hangsna (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could this be a case for Commons:Requests for checkuser? /Hangsna (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Adding File:Banana Skids (wikipedia).jpg, also the only upload of a user with the same camera. /Hangsna (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Alteración del copyright Eduardomorenoec (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any copyright issues with this file. What do you think that the problem is? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no issues. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
vandalism (this picture is th:พระยาศรยุทธเสนี_(กระแส_ประวาหะนาวิน), but the description states that he is a scientist, and it is not true) Nullzero (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a reason for deletion, because we can easily change it. However, the lack of source is - the uploader clearly didn't take this photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- th:ไฟล์:พระยาศรยุทธเสนี.JPG, the better version, is under {{PD-TH-exempt}}. I am not familiar with commons policies, so do whatever you think it is proper. --Nullzero (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: better quality image already on commons Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Alteración del copyright Eduardomorenoec (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any copyright issues with this file. What do you think that the problem is? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no issues with this image Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
We have the same file and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete The one for which deletion is requested has a larger pixel size and byte size than the other, but they both have the same JPEG artefacts. Most likely the larger one was made by scaling up the small one. Rybec (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: File was duplicate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Alteración del copyright Eduardomorenoec (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any copyright issues here. What is the problem? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no issues with this image Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Alteración del copyright Eduardomorenoec (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any copyright issues with this file. What do you think that the problem is? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no issues with image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Alteración de copyright 200.5.120.28 15:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only motivation of the nominator for this request and other similar ones is try to intimidate me for having tagged as copyvio one of his uploads. The only issue with the image is that it is no longer available on Flickr, which is not sufficient reason for deletion. Jespinos (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, was checked by Flickr upload bot and has been on Commons for six years. Rybec (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Flicker upload bot checked out. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that the painting is in the public domain. The uploader has claimed his ownership of the painting,[3], but not that he himself has created it. Eleassar (t/p) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am Stjepan Lončar ( Cohas ), and i am the author of image CroataČohašOrezano.jpg!
Greeting Cohas.cohas (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: flagged npd FASTILY 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Original uploader didn't have the rights to upload it with that license and changed it thus on Flickr (see also the "Usage terms" in the EXIF-Data, it says the same). Consider Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ska_Keller.jpg, it's a related case and was deleted. Maybe are there also other files like that – is there any tool to search other pictures with that usage terms? Xacyllum (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep CC licenses are not revocable once granted... --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems Commons:LL as the copyright holder and Flickr user seems different. Jee 15:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the copyright holder and the Flickr uploader (German Greens) aren't the same.
- As the German Greens told to me and here in the case of the other picture, that one was mistakenly uploaded with a wrong license (they changed it now on Flickr).
- Therefore, it's not LL, but the picture hasn't independent of that a CC license of the copyright owner. --Xacyllum (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems Commons:LL as the copyright holder and Flickr user seems different. Jee 15:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: flickr washing FASTILY 10:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Graphic elements of this image were copied from a web-available download and not credited. I found the image [4] here, parent page [5]. I found the image on several other websites as well. The only difference between that image and the one nominated for deletion here, is translation to a foreign language. Without a clear copyright statement on the download site, under the Precautionary Principle, this image is a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. (What does the phrase «to a foreign language» add to the sentence, though? Isn’t it redundant? Foreign relative to what? I’m worried that this verbal slip shows that the nominator, soon to be an admin, lacks a matured understanding of the nature of Commons as an international project, where the use of English is a mere practicality, not a defining essential). -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's quite an extraordinary extrapolation of a user's point of view from a simple typo. It's not uncommon for nonnative English speakers and even occasionally some native English speakers to make such a small slip. Under Commons:Assume good faith, the most reasonable inference that can be made from such a typo is that the writer is not actually a native English speaker. Redundant English expressions written in English is never a problem with the language, nor to the Commons Wiki. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but: 1st, Ellin Beltz is a native English speaker, as per user page, and 2nd, it is exactly those small, unmeant slips that some times reveal problematic biases. I give a famous example: In the 1990ies the President of Portugal extensively visited the Azores in an official tour; while being guided into a volcanic cave he said «Oh, yes!, we in Portugal have caves also!» This terrible faux pas doesn’t really show a lack in his knowledge of Geography, but exposed his uncounscious belief that the outlying automonous region is not really proper Portugal — which looks really bad for a President. Similarly, while I’m sure that Ellin Beltz holds no counscious belief that English and its native speakers are inherently better than the rest, the phrase above seems to expose an underlying feeling that the there’s English and then there’s the other, “foreign” languages (and its and their speakers) — wich is unsuitable for a Commons’ admin. The word "foreign" in an international context has very limited useability and a case such as this surely isn’t included. (And this derailment is all my fault and should probably be moved somewhere else.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- The document was translated into a language foreign to the one in which the sample online was presented and to any languages I read or recognize. The Wikipedia page on the topic reads "A foreign language is a language indigenous to another country. It is also a language not spoken in the native country of the person referred to, i.e. an English speaker living in Japan can say that Japanese is a foreign language to him or her." There is no section on that page for pejorative use of the term "foreign language," so I fail to see the point. The image was created in English language; someone else saved the image, but changed the language to a different language which I do not recognize; that doesn't stop the image from being a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comments and questions: You are right, Ellin Beltz (talk); I found the picture on-line written in English and translated into Turkish by myself.
- As I correctly perceived, your motivations to put the picture on the deletion requests are (If I am wrong, please correct):
- - The picture was found somewhere on internet. The picture itself and the web site(s), where was/were uploaded in, may not be assessed in terms of "the wikimedia commons" legislation.
- - The picture was originally prepared/written in English. Then, it was translated into another language (into Turkish). Even if the original English one -- found on-line and was not certain that it would or would not be appropriate to use in wikipedia -- is relevant to the "Spiral of silence" theory, it is not clear whether the Turkish translation is 100% accurate or the wikipedia user translated [it] regarding her/his own attitudes ignoring what the original English one means.
- If you have hesitation about the Turkish translation, I can only say that, you can try to learn Turkish to check the picture's accuracy. Because it would be hard and take time to explain the grammar structures of both languages in this particular deletion requests page. If any participant in this discussion page does not know the basic structure of Turkish language (it could be French, Afrikaans or Mandarin dialect, too), it may be a waste of time to convert this page into a language class. For this manner, I agree on "Commons:Assume good faith" which was already provided above by TeleComNasSprVen (talk).
- I think, the problem here is not about the Turkish translation. If there are still concerns about the translation or the "foreign language" issue, please read again the statements above written directly by the picture's translator and uploader.
- If I am not wrong, the point here is: Will the picture remain in the wikimedia commons or will not?
- The reason brought by Ellin Beltz (talk) is that there may/will be a license problem. So my questions are:
- 1. Suppose that there is not any picture available on-line in English or any language; if I had directly prepared/written the picture in Turkish by myself, would it be allowed to/in the wikimedia commons? Would the admins consider it "as an original material/research and/or personal motivation" ?
- 2. I have conducted extensive research on "Spiral of silence" both in English and Turkish sources: First from the original framer of the theory "Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann"; from vast variety of academic reports, articles, books and comments; and from the survey results conducted in relevant and distinctive fields (conducted particularly by academics in many countries). On the basis of my observations, the picture (both in English and Turkish) is accurate in the "Spiral of silence" page. (This picture, also, can be translated into other languages of the theory in wikipedia.)
- 3. If the problem is, still, about "the license issue", what will we say about the "Occupy Wall Street" poster advertised by Adbusters ?
- Personally, I support the OWS movement. But this particular poster seems a little bit propaganda rather than trying to deliver a neutral panorama about the protests.
- 4. In the end, the picture is relevant to the "Spiral of silence" theory (in any language; not only in English or in Turkish). What are your guidance to make it available in wikimedia commons & wikipedia? Do we have to establish a web site and make it notable & verifiable in the wikipedia legislation? Does it have to be promoted to some of the well-known news sites, to a scholar's about-to-be-published book or to the expert-eyes of the editor board of Encyclopaedia Britannica to get linked and to get licensed [for wikipedia] ? --Toksoz (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: If our one and only problem is about "the license" issue, apart from the link -1-, there is another picture placed in/on the "University of Twente" web page:
- - The picture's link in English: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/spiral_of_silence/spiral_of_silence-1.gif
- - The parent page of the picture: http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Media,%20Culture%20and%20Society/spiral_of_silence/
- I wrote this source as a reference in the "Summary" box and also mentioned as: "The uploader, "Toksoz", translated it into Turkish."
- Now, is there any other license, tag, tamplate and etc. problem? --Toksoz (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Toksoz:If you find that this picture may be valuable for Turkish Wikipedia because it is the only one on the subject matter and despite it being copyrighted, I can offer to preserve a local copy for the Turkish Wikipedia provided that you have a local fair use policy for Turkish Wikipedia as laid down by the Wikimedia Foundation's Licensing Policy. Copyrighted objects incompatible with CC-BY-SA and GFDL, no matter what they are used for, are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons.
- To answer question one, if the image has already been present on the web beforehand, even if you wanted to draw the image by yourself it would be "stealing" the "idea/set of ideas" that led to the creation of such an image. That is the concept behind copyright, and why we cannot allow such images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons.
- To answer question three, that image has been hosted locally on the English Wikipedia, tagged with a "Non-free media information and use rationale" template, which is allowed under and controlled by English Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If Turkish Wikipedia has such a policy, as provided under the WMF Licensing Policy mentioned above, then it may be locally uploaded. The image referred to for use on the English Wikipedia is not hosted on the Wikimedia Commons server. Thus, no other website, including Turkish Wikipedia, can access that same file. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- CommentTo return to the only issue at hand here. The image is not identical to the image now sourced in the image description [6] and stated by Toksoz to be the source, but it is identical to [7] this image which is found on parent page [8] here. The "UTwente" image is smaller than the one uploaded here. The line weights and arrows on the one uploaded to Commons are from the larger version as well. The idea that "we need this diagram for the article" isn't a valid argument for retention of a copyrighted image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, unless there is valid proof provided through Commons:OTRS that the originator of the image has agreed to release it under the given license, the file must be Deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Even if it is a translation of the original source version, it still represents the same "idea" and "concept" (Spiral of silence theory) using a different language. Copyright exists to protect "ideas" from being copied without permission. Translations of existing works may be treated by the Commons:Derivative works policy, as a work derived from or based on a preexisting copyrighted object, and therefore under Commons policy are copyright violations. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please do whatever has to be done:
- To TeleComNasSprVen (talk): One of the worst behaviour called "Plagiarism" never came to (and will never come to) my mind, while I was preparing/translating the picture from English into Turkish in Jan & Feb 2013. At that time, I was fresh in the wikipedia community. I had already known the NPOV issues while I was editing and/or translating both in Turkish and English so I had paid attention (and still paying) to wording. But I was not aware that much about an image uploading and usage legislation in the community. I found the image in English on internet; translated [it] into Turkish staying in the sphere of the "Spiral of silence" theory; placed the Turkish translations over the English ones; and uploaded the newly-prepared image on the wikimedia commons. At that time, I was not aware of the "Summary" box section and not aware of -- even more important part than licensing -- the "author" section. I wrote there, without hesitation, my own user name; because I thought the legislation was asking who the uploader was, I did not know that it actually asks who the copyright holder is. I thought if I had not written a name next to the author section, the image would not be allowed in/to the wikimedia & wikipedia community; because it would be perceived as anonymously-uploaded, "no name", so would be deleted. I wrote next to the "description" section in Turkish "Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann tarafından geliştirilen 'Suskunluk Sarmalı'" (means in English: The Spiral of silence theory propounded by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann). I thought that there was her, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, name next to description section so it was identified that the diagram genuinely belonged to her; so there would not be a copyright problem. Now I've learnt that I was and am wrong.
- Wikipedia is a global community but it has become clearer that some regions, continents or countries have their own rights, especially on those "copyright" issues. I will pay more attention from now on about this image issue.
- To Ellin Beltz (talk): Now it seems that there is a less concern about the translation accuracy of the picture. But I am so surprised that not even the language issue; the dimensions of both images, the thickness of the lines and frames, the similarity of the fonts and maybe the colour tones have been strictly important! I have nothing to say; please do whatever has to be done. --Toksoz (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry if my post sounded so harsh, but I agree that generally speaking copyright law is very tough for new uploaders to understand. It's not exactly the same as "plagiarism", but copyright tries to mimic the concept and prevent it in law. We generally try and give some leeway as far as breaking copyright rules is allowed, and there are various ways to do it on Commons and elsewhere. Don't punish yourself so hard if you don't quite get it right the first time; it's happened to us all before (at least to me).
- Regarding the image, I can save it to my computer and reupload it on Turkish Wikipedia only a) if the software allows me, and b) if the Turkish Wikipedia has what's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" as noted above. Click here and I hope you can understand some of the legal language there explaining what "Exemption Doctrine Policy" means. @Toksoz: I think the equivalent there is Vikipedi:Adil kullanım gerekçelendirme yönergesi which was linked to from the English Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Can you check to make sure that's the appropriate policy I can refer to? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline" and "Vikipedi:Adil kullanım gerekçelendirme yönergesi" are the same.
- There are some questions under "Necessary components" title. And currently, I (and guess you, too) cannot accurately answer to those questions (again; not about the "purpose of the image" and "language" issues but the "physical description", "copyright" and the definitive "tag" issues). A majority of those [questions] are asking "permissions" from the original sources; so for the "Spiral of silence" case these sources are these two links (1) and (2). --Toksoz (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: There have been enough confusion in this DR. User:Toksoz is obviously talented and persistent, but needs to unederstand that Commons and (English, Turkish, or any) Wikipedia are two different projects. This image is copyrighted and cannot be hoisted in Commons. Period. Nothing of what was ventilated above is relevant to challenge this state of affairs. (Tip: I think you could invoke Threshold of Originality to claim that this image is in public domain; but I don’t advise it.)
- Copyright laws being what they are however, a lot of latitude is allowed when rendering «ideas or concepts» in diagrammatic form. As ideas and concepts, such as the Spiral of Silence, cannot be copyrighted, it is perfectly acceptable to redraw this diagram anew to illustrate the original concept. Since it consists only of text, generic arrows, a generic vortex, and a generic scale (all of these being uncopyrightable images/shapes, inherently in public domain), any half baked doodler can come up with a decent alternative — indeed a much better one than the poorly traced source image. That would surely take less time and effort than the argumentation above.
- To make it even easier, I transcribed the Turkish text and placed it along a few free images from Commons at File talk:TR spiral-of-silence-communication-theory.jpg#Remade with free images (I could not find a proper linedraw vortex…) Feel free to use and improve it. (Please note that I incorporated a detail from the Twente University image that is lacking in the Commons image: The right-side arrows, standing for interpersonal support, are increasingly thinner as the spiral widens — this seems to be very important.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Repeating one more time:
- - My purpose was and is not Plagiarism, which you may have already learnt from the comments I wrote above.
- - I was wrong about the uploading procedure of the diagram into the wikimedia commons; from now on, I must be much more careful.
- - I am not going to discuss the translation accuracy of the diagram [from English into Turkish] anymore. I translated it strictly considering what the “Spiral of silence” theory tells. If there is still concern about the translation, I suggest those, who have concerns, to find other wikipedia users or relevant people to check [it] and if not satisfied and/or if possible improve the translation. But, personally, if I recognize those, who make an effort to translate, are wandering off [out of] the “Spiral of silence” theory, I am ready to assist them. So, in conclusion, I prefer to look at first “Commons:Assume good faith”.
- - These discussion pages are not based on only to test my or anybody’s proficiency on any topic. Discussing on “proficiency”, “expertise”, “capability” and etc. may require larger set of minds and larger brainstorming from a variety of disciplines.
- - Of course, the one and only diagram is not this; no matter in which languages these were written. But at least, we have explored that, there already exists a diagram/image/poster/picture/drawing etc. and [it] tells the majority of the theory in essence and in short. Therefore, I do not see a problem to use this [or any] diagram, always staying in the sphere of the theory, in theory’s wikipedia page.
- After this point, we reached the next step called “copyright holding”, “permission”, “authorization” and etc. issues. Unfortunately, these are wasting our valuable time. There are such legislations, restrictions, etc. on hundreds of thousands of areas; say music industry, say film industry or say publishing industry. Even one of the core aims of wikimedia & wikipedia world is to create a bit freer space in “the virtual world” called internet, “copyright” seems an arduous epidemic… But, for now, for this discussion, what can we do!? I have to follow the legislation and I will, assuming good faith.
- As Tuválkin ✉ mentioned above: “As ideas and concepts, such as the Spiral of Silence, cannot be copyrighted, it is perfectly acceptable to redraw this diagram anew to illustrate the original concept.” and thanks to his endeavour, I replaced the presumably-problematic-old diagram with his work prepared within neutral symbols/materials available in the wikimedia commons database.
- If there occurred/occurs any problem, go on to notify. --Toksoz (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: That's a good replacement, but we would also need to delete the old revision from history and relicense the existing image as a derivative work of four preexisting images (File:U+21DA.svg, File:U+21DB.svg, File:Standard self-similarity.png, File:Vortex in draining bottle of water.jpg, File:U+21D0.svg, File:U+21E0.svg) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Istanbul United (A brochure about the Taksim Gezi Park protests).jpg Image not found at Sources given. Image contains recognizable images of presumably living people, is overlain with text and is sourced as a "brochure" with author "Burak Gunay", a living artist. See his Twitter [9]. Image previously deleted see [10] here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: {{personality}} tag was placed under the "Summary" box to avoid the reason written above as "Image contains recognizable images of presumably living people". If there is still a problem, please check the similar photo here, placed on the "Occupy Wall Street" and "Human microphone" pages. --Toksoz (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This image [11] gives the best overview of the misunderstanding here. Please have a look, perhaps it or COM:L will be of help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Toksoz: While Commons:Photographs of identifiable people as a policy page is in effect, and there are considerations for the living people involved in the picture, it is certainly not the only concern used to justify the deletion of the image. For example, in a debate about whether an image should be deleted because it is copyrighted or deleted because it contains images of personally identifiable people, the argument that it is copyrighted might be given slightly more weight. Especially as, in your case, the image has already been tagged by {{Personality rights}} to identify the subject as a public figure. But in both cases, of personality rights and of copyright, the law is strict about keeping or deleting such images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please do whatever has to be done: TeleComNasSprVen (talk), you notify as "the law is strict about keeping or deleting such images". And you also remind that while assessing a material, the legislation is divided into two following; "the images of personally identifiable people" and "the copyright issues", and most of the time the copyright one is prioritized.
- I have no communication with the creator of the image, Burak Gunay, and obviously cannot estimate whether he will give his permission for the wikimedia & wikipedia community.
- Not knowing him at all and trying to speak from his mouth, I have no idea how he proves of these identifiable people in his work:
- - Did he take the picture [of those "identifiable people"] and then arranged it within his own software programs by himself?
- - Considering he really took the picture, did he get their permissions [identifiable people's permission] for his work?
- - Or he found the picture somewhere [no matter; on internet, in a memory card or through a famous photo-journalist's camera] and "delivered" it on his computer, applied his artistic proficiency [on the picture as "Istanbul United" words and all the other stuff], placed his twitter address at the bottom of the image and published it on his own deviantart page and own twitter account. --Toksoz (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Toksoz: While Commons:Photographs of identifiable people as a policy page is in effect, and there are considerations for the living people involved in the picture, it is certainly not the only concern used to justify the deletion of the image. For example, in a debate about whether an image should be deleted because it is copyrighted or deleted because it contains images of personally identifiable people, the argument that it is copyrighted might be given slightly more weight. Especially as, in your case, the image has already been tagged by {{Personality rights}} to identify the subject as a public figure. But in both cases, of personality rights and of copyright, the law is strict about keeping or deleting such images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 10:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
File is found at source given, but there is no indication that this image is freely licensed making it a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- What is your guidance to make this photo approved by all means in "the wikimedia commons" legislation? Is "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)" type license not enough? What type of "template" should be placed in/on the photo? --Toksoz (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This image [12] gives the best overview of the misunderstanding here. Please have a look, perhaps it or COM:L will be of help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Toksoz: You also need some form of evidence that you are the copyright holder of this image and/or that the source website linked to in the file description http://www.korhaber.com/ has authorized you to release it under the given license. To do this, please visit the Open-source Ticket Request System on Commons and ask the volunteers there about the best way to go about proving that. Don't worry if an image gets deleted though, it can always be reinstated under Commons:Undeletion requests once the OTRS tickets go through, and for current images you can add {{OTRS pending}} to signify that you want the deletion put on hold while you work it out with the OTRS people. @Ellin Beltz: I'm tempted to have used {{No license}} as the information template for this image instead of the DR, but I understand why you may have chosen this venue considering the terms of use for http://www.korhaber.com/ are very hard to find. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- To TeleComNasSprVen (talk), again I have no evidence that I am the copyright holder as I wrote in another similar "copyright" issue discussed between you and me. I directly wrote "www.korhaber.com" next to the "author" section because the picture officially belongs to them. I did not write my user name; because I am the uploader, am not the copyright holder.
- So the case poured into, again, "permission" or "authorization" issue.
- I can try your suggestion as "{{OTRS pending}}" tag. Let's see how this case will be concluded. --Toksoz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. This can be restored upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY 10:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Original revision is a derivative work of deleted File:CALENDAR.JPG (Commons:Deletion requests/File:CALENDAR.JPG) old revision should be deleted leaving the current upload that was recreated with CC0 1.0 File:2014 calendar.svg Nicoli Maege (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: done FASTILY 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
However, I cannot find support to the notion that this appears to be a likely copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)image appears to likely be a copyright violation. Source link does not provide info about formal licensing status of image, and without this it cannot exist on Commons. Though it is a great shot. Which is a shame.
- Keep Google images gives only four hits for this image in full resolution, all of them clear derivatives:
- http://kathyrasmussen.com/2013/11/25/the-value-of-music/ (image link): Published on Nov.25th via Pintrest, credited to Lucas Boesche; illustrated with other stock images from Unsplash.
- http://imgur.com/gallery/6Jlq2Q6 (image link): Published on Nov. 2013; no source or credit
- http://www.mollyfulton.net/november-performance-anxiety/ (image link): Published on Nov.4th, credited to Lucas Boesche; illustrated with other stock images.
- http://blog.sebfung.com/the-power-of-free-writing/#header (image link): Published on Dec.25th, uncredited; illustrated with other stock images from Unsplash.
- The best source for this image, oldest and in larger resolution, seems to be the quoted http://unsplash.com/post/64376634095/download-by-lucas-boesche (published on October 2013) — surely it could be still a copyvio, and the actual original (either indeed by Lucas Boesche or by someone else) could be somewhere else online, or even not online at all (in the latter case the copyvio having been done with access to private digital communications or to actual hardware). Even the whole of http://unsplash.com/ could be an ellaborate prank outfit, stealing photos around the web and placing them under CC-0 for almost one year, but that is not likely — not enough to warrant a speedy deletion. While, as mentioned, Unsplash is irritatingly scarce on all sorts of details about their material, its credibility is, I believe, intact. Should this change, then a general DR should be filed in, covering all delinquent images. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just did my own more-thorough review of "unsplash"-- it's front page reads: "Free (do whatever you want) hi-resolution photos." This doesn't exactly sound like the text of a Creative Commons license, but more like the casual remark of someone who doesn't care all that much where the photos come from or who uses them or why, which is worrisome. It says nothing else about what it exists for, what its policies are, or how it operates. If you click through its images, you can see that they are all very professional-looking shots and can even see the name of the person who took them. But there is nothing associated with any of these images to suggest that they are in the public domain or are freely licensed. The site is owned by a Mikael Cho and is run out of a server in Paris. It's photos seem to be the work of primarily European photographers, but I am not familiar with the European policies with regard to licensing and public domain. Having found no indication that any of the images on Unsplash.com are, in fact, freely licensed, it seems prudent to remove any of them from Commons. But I would like to hear others' thoughts on the issue. KDS444 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I moved this discussion to the Category’s talk page, as this is not about this image in special. I assume that you found no evidence that this one image was available online elsewhere earlier, yes? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- That is correct: I could find no evidence of its availability elsewhere, but could also find no evidence of the version I could find (this one) being correctly licensed. Interestingly, the image does indicate an author through his Facebook page. I think I will shoot a quick message off to him and see what the deal is. KDS444 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, so far no word from the supposed author, no response to my email. Darn.KDS444 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I take it back: he responded today. Here is the text of his message to me inquiring about the copyright status of the image: "Hi, I really sent this picture to a site exposure images, where I loose the use of her rights. But if you choose to use it, would be happy if the image appeared in the credits my name. If you need more pictures of this type, feel free to ask. Thanks for the contact!" That doesn't really answer the question, of course, but it's a start, yes? I have sent him a follow-up message asking him to elaborate as best he can with his English on the copyright status of the image and to clarify that he is indeed the original author. Will report back when I hear from him again.
- His is Brazilian, so I can talk with him in our native language. I’m reluctant to use Facebook for anything serious, but… Anyway, if the matter is to procure an independent licensing for this image, then this will have to go through OTRS. If it is just a way to gauge the reliability of Unspash in terms of their relicensing and managing rights for photographers, then at least it is not a total scam. Thanks for you efforts and interest! (This should get me e-mailing some of the other authors, too!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have heard back, and he has confirmed things to my satisfaction-- I agree that Facebook isn't exactly what can be called a perfectly reliable check on the authorship of an image, but I am convinced that Lucas does exist (as opposed to being a contrivance of unsplash.com) and I am convinced that he is the author of the image, and that he has released it unto the public domain. My deletion request should be
withdrawn at this point-- it seems I was mistaken. KDS444 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have heard back, and he has confirmed things to my satisfaction-- I agree that Facebook isn't exactly what can be called a perfectly reliable check on the authorship of an image, but I am convinced that Lucas does exist (as opposed to being a contrivance of unsplash.com) and I am convinced that he is the author of the image, and that he has released it unto the public domain. My deletion request should be
- His is Brazilian, so I can talk with him in our native language. I’m reluctant to use Facebook for anything serious, but… Anyway, if the matter is to procure an independent licensing for this image, then this will have to go through OTRS. If it is just a way to gauge the reliability of Unspash in terms of their relicensing and managing rights for photographers, then at least it is not a total scam. Thanks for you efforts and interest! (This should get me e-mailing some of the other authors, too!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I take it back: he responded today. Here is the text of his message to me inquiring about the copyright status of the image: "Hi, I really sent this picture to a site exposure images, where I loose the use of her rights. But if you choose to use it, would be happy if the image appeared in the credits my name. If you need more pictures of this type, feel free to ask. Thanks for the contact!" That doesn't really answer the question, of course, but it's a start, yes? I have sent him a follow-up message asking him to elaborate as best he can with his English on the copyright status of the image and to clarify that he is indeed the original author. Will report back when I hear from him again.
- I moved this discussion to the Category’s talk page, as this is not about this image in special. I assume that you found no evidence that this one image was available online elsewhere earlier, yes? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn FASTILY 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the cloth looks modern; it is not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm unsure, I rather think the cloth might qualify for de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would consider it de minimis if the title and category were not 'Christmass Altar' - i.e. displaying the Christmas decoration of the altar. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No source to prove that the author of the monument died before 1943. No FoP in France. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- La notice d'autorité de la BNF est désormais incluse dans l'article fr et dans Commons : j'espère que cela sera suffisant pour clore cette demande de suppression d'image. --Philippe rogez (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad... I didn't know that Louis Leclabart was dead in 1929, more than 71 years ago.
- Please don't delete this file. Sorry. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 01:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image is clealry taken from a book, without proper credit given to its author and likely without being freely licensed. KDS444 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not as clear as you suggest. Could be licensed under Crown Copyright and eligible to be on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link to "Crown Copyright"? I am not familiar with this term or concept. Thanks! Also, the author information is inaccurate in any case: the uploader is not also the author, and my understanding is that on this basis alone the image would need to be removed from Commons.KDS444 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image is clealry taken from a book, without proper credit given to its author and likely without being freely licensed. KDS444 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not as clear as you suggest. Could be licensed under Crown Copyright and eligible to be on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 23:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep - nothing copyrightable visible.--Sporti (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is a much more elaborate structure than bus stops.[13] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)