Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/12/14

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive December 14^th, 2019

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Дмитрий-СГ Синицын и Ник Рок-н-рол.jpg

This file was initially tagged by GAndy as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio. GAndy (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish ^💬 03:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Рэй Торо 2014-01-26 04-49.png

This file was initially tagged by GAndy as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user without a contribution with a Russian nickname uploads a portrait photo of a musician of an American band, while the file is searched in the network before uploading to Wikimedia Commons. GAndy (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish ^💬 03:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stove - Modern Electric Type (PSF).png

Because it is Other, Blurry Lex' Galaxy (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aroma Magic.jpg

Also:

User:Aromamagic

Per COM:ADVERT Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 09:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Spam only account. --Achim (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AewRevolution.jpg

Not {{Own}}. Clear taken from here. Source does not indicate image freely licensed, and states "© 2019 All Elite Wrestling, LLC. All Rights Reserved." Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, by User:Túrelio, Reason: Copyvio. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 14:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:20171117 162852ㅈㄱㄷㄱㄷㄱㄷㄱㄷ.jpg

Gibberish Jjw (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio at 13:46, 14 Dezember 2019 UTC: Privacy infringement. This person is not public person. --Krdbot 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493278201).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493305423).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501111983).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5510820683).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3299496432).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3299500622).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. No reason to delete; free licensed image online for 10 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Assassin's Creed Sceenshot 01.png

This file was initially tagged by Filo gèn' as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Bad name Filo gèn' (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Copyviol/DW-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Simpo Cleaning.jpg

Per COM:ADVERT ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: CSD#G10. ~riley (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luis Fernando Cueto Chavarría - para Wikipedia.pdf

problemas de fuentes La Librería (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: author's request, in addition clearly out of project scope. --Achim (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sn83045211-19141214.jpg

Duplicate of File:HMS B11 sub and crew 1914.jpg Thats Just Great (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F8. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Benini-M5SER.jpg

Copyviol from https://www.lapressa.it/articoli/politica/regionali-ecco-gli-8-nomi-della-lista-modenese-m5s Holapaco77 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (speedy). Ruthven (msg) 23:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dianna Agron (2019).jpg

File was published on webpage https://www.broadwayworld.com/cabaret/article/Photo-Flash-Dianna-Agron-Charms-at-Cafe-Carlyle-20190123 and photo credit given to David Andrako; website is copyrighted BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Clearcut COM:COPYVIO. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dianna Agron 2019.jpg

File was published on webpage https://www.broadwayworld.com/cabaret/article/Photo-Flash-Dianna-Agron-Charms-at-Cafe-Carlyle-20190123 and photo credit given to David Andrako; website is copyrighted BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Clearcut COPYVIO. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493306511).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493307079).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493855848).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493856660).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493897508).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501064203).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501080399).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501108919).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501115689).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501657148).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501659100).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501659650).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501702890).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5501703952).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5510819751).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5511416656).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5527808967).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5527945601).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5527947307).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5527951155).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5528401468).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5528402378).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2310434731).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2311193350).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2311237242).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2334046895).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2334058085).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2334846482).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2334883726).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2334884394).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards dancers (2383978375).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards dancers (2383980315).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2384807222).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards dancers (2384812842).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2451627211).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2460260721).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2460262297).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2460263835).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (2461100254).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3064663589).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3064678539).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3081910992).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3085773961).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3086610078).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (3348557222).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (4087026479).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (4087744772).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5262227885).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5272680809).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5276631228).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5376599715).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5376681045).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5377198138).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards Dancers (5527813353).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (6866745290).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (6866787526).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (6866790592).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (7012843783).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (7012895443).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Wizards girl (7012932465).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wizard Girls (34076663520).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wizard Girls (34418676636).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A-k`o-su NK-44 (1950) - panoramio.jpg

Plan to reupload from [1] so that users are not forced to give attribution to www.almatymaps.kz when using this map. This measure will also prevent this map from being randomly deleted on the basis that it is a Panoramio picture. See [2] for details.

This file may need to be deleted and reuploaded? For discussion see [3] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO no need to delete: just the author, license and date should be fixed. The source is irrelevant if the work is PD-USGov and scanning is a non-copyrightable operation. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: Should I just change the source to something like: "Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin. ([4])", change the author to something like: "Army Map Service (AM), Corps of Engineers, 1950" and just outright remove the www.almatymaps.kz permission? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to carry out the changes mentioned above [5] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (30383475207).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (44600499144).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (44410986935).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders.jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (36759345070).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (30335513256) (2).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (37152266975).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baltimore Ravens Cheerleaders (20993297015).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (30384205637).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (37155519495).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (36341472983).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (30338573186).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (29741409763).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Junior cheerleaders (43511448680).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erin Andrews (24175956328).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erin Andrews, Jason Garrett.jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleaders (31448866658).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and its no longer available under a Creative Commons license. Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (36759269110).jpg

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and its no longer available under a Creative Commons license. Keithallisonphoto (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mahdi keyfi (talk · contribs)

Falses dates, not own works. Please explain why images are public domain in Iran.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mahdi keyfi (talk · contribs)

Not own work: historical photos taken from the web user upload history.

4nn1l2 (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by PianoPlayer93 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope.

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 13:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:C4iralho png.png

Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 14:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Maddy Engira Madhavan.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Commons:Derivative works from copyrighted characters. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination above. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 14:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:VISHAL CHOUHAN.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boston (2019) - 771.jpg

Recent public art; the US has no freedom of panorama for artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Best-upwork-alternatives.jpg

Per COM:SCOPE. No realistic utility. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 08:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tributo alle Friendly Floated - Saint Nazaire (Francia).jpg

No freedom of panorama in France, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rubber Duck in Coos Bay Oregon USA.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MamaDuck.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this before. However after taking a glance at the article I suppose it applies to this picture. Buffaboy (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:20190929 cold relief.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Обрезанный пенис.jpg

Out of scope. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 07:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cooch behar a selfie.jpg

Also,

per COM:NOTHOST and COM:SCOPE. Selfies. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 12:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Midez.jpg

Per COM:ADVERT, Out of project scope. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 14:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant promotion. --Achim (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by MonaHDI2.2019 (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Documento biográfico para ayudar a dalia.pdf

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hyderabad-Hyderabad-page-12 (2) (1).pdf

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Zapataenlinea (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jean pool ticse (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:HISTORIA CAFIVER Wikipedia.pdf

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jovanegr (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Unused or used in self-promotion Wikidata item.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Amir cafe24 (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Unused or used in self-promotion Wikidata item.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ceyhunfikrət.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Josepablotur (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jorrit and Martijn Polder.jpg

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Crosscheck is dead headline narrow.jpg

The only rationale for upload was "Just loaded this to remove the map because it was misleading. Will create a proper map asap." Delete per COM:SCOPE Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Yes sorry that file has been deleted and a proper map has been placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeaveCrosscheck (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paradise Computers ~ Main Store in The Mango Tree Center - panoramio.jpg

advertisement -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LoS.png

Game poster, fair use. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 08:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:El Greco 056.jpg

This is not original painting 5.173.2.148 17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per COM:INUSE and this is probably not the right place to discuss the authenticity of the image, especially without any kind of rationale. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:3-butenonitrilo.tif

Low-res at full-size, with uneven angles. Have a bunch of high-quality in Category:3-Butenenitrile DMacks (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AllylCyanideExplicit.png

Uploader request (was overlooked for too long to be SPEEDY#G7). It's not the title compound, but Category:Acrylonitrile instead, of which we have many alte. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; original uploaders request, also superseded by many better alternatives! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photos from vampiro12x2.tistory.com

Unfortunately, it seems that these photos need to go. I came across File:170124 라니아(RANIA) BP 라니아(BP RANIA) 김포공항 팬싸인회 알렉산드라(Alexandra) 1.jpg, which required a license review, but wasn't tagged as such. The original post was deleted, but it was archived on the Wayback Machine. The original post is tagged as {{Cc-by-4.0}}, but the footer also contains {{Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}. The intent of the photographer was likely the latter, see this similar case. The plugin that allowed Tistory users to insert the footer was discontinued in October 2017 and disappeared from the website (see User:-revi/Tistory#How to find a license on the tistory.com pages). As a result, the noncommercial license became invisible. Per the precautionary principle, these files should be deleted.

Open the list to see the list of affected images

Ə XPLICIT 02:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Ooops I didn't know "The plugin that allowed Tistory users to insert the footer was discontinued in October 2017", so I didn't know that as you said. Puramyun31 (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case (plugin-based Tistory CCL) sounds like more common, so I've made a shortcut link for them. User:-revi/Tistory#doubleCCL — regards, Revi 16:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination: I'm going through deletion in a short moment after saving this. — regards, Revi 16:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Esteghlal FC vs Sanat Naft Abadan FC, 5 November 2019 - 098.jpg

In my opinion, this picture's main subject is the banner. Because the banner's copyright status is not clear (and it also has a non-free logo), I think it doesn't fall within COM:DM's scope. Ahmad^talk 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Olympiad essays of Amirreza.jpg

Unknown source, scanned from a book or ebook page Atomicdragon136 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Uploads by Kotoko09032 where a current CC-BY license cannot be found on YouTube

YouTube links either show no CC-BY release or are unavailable. Checking webarchive does not show any archived version with an appropriate license either.

Fæ (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --miya (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stefan Dabruck .jpg

This file was initially tagged by Krd as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Found here https://global.belmont.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.ViewProgram&Program_ID=10339 - needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ciudad de Reine, Noruega.png

Clearer and larger version found here 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 08:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Maria Lawendatu.jpg

Small, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 11:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paulo Alba "Peluk".jpg

Personal work, non-notable person, not in use in any article. - Fma12 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

Bogus license: not a U.S. work. Besides no Creative Commons license at source.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

Not sure the "permission" is sufficient for Commons. Besides false statement by user: https://www.gob.mx/terminos doesn't say content is "free to use unless otherwise indicated" but "la información del portal gob.mx es pública".

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The terms and conditions of gob.mx literally say that the information of gob.mx is public unless otherwise indicated, that means it is free to use unless otherwise indicated. --Gindomarlo (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons requires that images must be irrevocably free for any use by anyone. "public" is nowhere near that -- it simply means that the public can view it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

Not sure the "permission" is sufficient for Commons. Besides false statement by user: https://www.gob.mx/terminos doesn't say content is "free to use unless otherwise indicated" but "la información del portal gob.mx es pública".

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The terms and conditions of gob.mx literally say that the information of gob.mx is public unless otherwise indicated, that means it is free to use unless otherwise indicated. --Gindomarlo (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons requires that images must be irrevocably free for any use by anyone. "public" is nowhere near that -- it simply means that the public can view it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

Not sure the "permission" is sufficient for Commons. Besides false statement by user: https://www.gob.mx/terminos doesn't say content is "free to use unless otherwise indicated" but "la información del portal gob.mx es pública".

Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The terms and conditions of gob.mx literally say that the information of gob.mx is public unless otherwise indicated, that means it is free to use unless otherwise indicated. --Gindomarlo (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons requires that images must be irrevocably free for any use by anyone. "public" is nowhere near that -- it simply means that the public can view it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

No evidence that images were published without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Arthur Crbz. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

No evidence that images were published without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Arthur Crbz. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gindomarlo (talk · contribs)

Files from the WEF are not under cc-by-sa-2.0 anymore. OTRS permission to be verified.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel:

Keep the license has already been confirmed through OTRS:

{{WEF}}

. --Gindomarlo (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Please see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Template:WEF. The OTRS ticket simply confirms that WEF has distributed the cc-by or cc-by-sa license at that time (March 2008). Starting from 2014, the WEF has changed their license to cc-by-nc-sa. Based on comment from other user, the OTRS ticket doesn't represent this change. Official permission is still required. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Christinanilsson-operasinger-agent-picture.png

Copyvio https://www.welma.se/christina-aida/ EPIC (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can be speedily deleted, se file description. Riggwelter (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted by herbythyme. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tinh Thần (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cfngrsw2019.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in unapproved draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OkaMidori-2019.jpg

Copyright violation Chacmool (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moneylife.GIF

Possible copyvio. COM:EDUSE 109.238.92.4 18:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User talk:Amandamarionsequeira

I own this picture Amandamarionsequeira (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Princess Maddalena Marin of Lesina.jpg

Poor quality, Possibly Stolen from the internet. LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RickJeanneret.jpg

Copyvio of https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/28/buffalo-sabres-rick-jeanneret-medical-condition/ Schetm (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nuevo Logo Cesar Creation Designs C C DISEÑOS 1.png

Also:

Per COM:ADVERT. has description "Customization of Mugs and T-Shirts, Property of C C DISEÑOS San Antonio Municipality of Santa Fe Colon. Create . Innovate Solve" Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 10:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 09:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Collections of Pixel Museum

COM:TOYS

Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture File:N64 (38494792846).jpg should not be in that list because the Pikachu dolls are not in focus. If I cropped that picture (the upper part and a little on the right), would it pass? --Edelseider (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - excepted one that I cropped in a way I think acceptable. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yoda (37663241745).jpg

COM:TOYS Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Anna-Bondar.png

This file was initially tagged by Mitte27 as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: available in web before the upload here. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Friflag1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mitte27 as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: very small without EXIFs, unlikely to be own work. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Friflag2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mitte27 as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: very small without EXIFs, unlikely to be own work. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pirogova.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mitte27 as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Periodic Table of Urban Rail Systems.jpg

Possibly promotional. JalenFolf (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Handling345.jpg

grabbed from Facebook (see EXIF), unlikely to be own work. Sealle (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was the official photographer in the rings of this dog show and own all the rights. In the picture is my good friend Anastasia Goncharova, a well-known dog show handler in Russia and one of her favourite client's dog - setter, named Panda. --Anastasia Egorova1794 (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - please next time upload your own works in big resolution with EXIFs, otherwise, in case of photo already published, send a permission to com:OTRS. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Deyga Logo.jpg

also:

Per COM:ADVERT. Currently used on a en-wp userpage that reads like an advertisement. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 08:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zaban urdu mualla.png

This is not the right transcription of Zaban urdu maulla. The correct transcription of the language in Nastaliq is زابن اردو ملاؤ Vishnu Sahib (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A معلَي muʻallā (pass. part. of علّي 'to make high, to elevate, to exalt,' ii of علا (for علو) 'to be high, or elevated,' &c.) , part. adj. High, elevated, exalted, eminent, sublime: — muʻallā alqāb, Of exalted rank or dignity; — urdū-ě-muʻallā, s.m. 'The royal camp or court'; the court language; good Urdū Fowler&fowler (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely in use, so cannot be deleted except for copyvio. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rainbow Hotel, 1905 5th Ave, probably between 1911 and 1920 (SEATTLE 1620).jpg

We might be able to keep this as PD-no-notice if there is any evidence it fits that, and in any case we should be able to undelete in 4 years, but this is pretty clearly 1927-1928, not the stated 1911-1920. Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:-i---i- (42496419875).jpg

Photo of an artwork. No permission for artwork - so copytight violation. Simonxag (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tzvi Avisar 2016.jpg

The file taken from https://www.israelgives.org/amuta/580592244 (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqnOMJUbwPc&feature=emb_logo). -- Geagea (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:حسن سید آبادی.jpg

Unlikely to be own work; taken from the web. Also see the file history (3 versions). 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hammer Headshot 2020.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Praxidicae as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- Large image (2,394 × 2,847 pixels.), full EXIF -- no reason not to assume good faith. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:JeroenLenaersBruxelles2017.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Agora as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - good sized image (1,585 × 1,682 pixels.), full EXIF. No reason not to assume good faith. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Biomechanika kapalin a krevní oběh.pdf

Soubor byl nahrazen novou verzí Ivana Drabiková (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - It's also probably out of a scope and a copyvio. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Biomechanika kapalin a krevní oběh.pdf

Commons:Derivative works from non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Biomechanika kapalin a krevní oběh.pdf

nahrazen novým souborem Ivana Drabiková (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Steinsplitter. --Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Delhi Public School Saharanpur.png

मैंने इसे गलती से अपलोड कर दिया है Devansh02 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: courtesy deletion of duplicate file. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Speedy Gonzalez (2118485873).jpg

(1) COM:NOTUSED and not enough breed information to even determine whether a cropped version would add any educational value to the existing collection of cat photos; (2) COM:DW with no information here or at the source of who owns the photo or the Speedy Gonzales drawing Closeapple (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Srijan Pal Singh.png

Google images is suggesting this image is on https://twitter.com/srijanpalsingh but it's not actually found there. Given that this image is square, I suspect it's screenshot of Singh's profile pic at the time and Singh changed it since. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hikkaduwa-Hotel-Swimming-Pool-Waterproofing-Project.jpg

Image not found on listed source website. No evidence of free licence on listed source website. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 08:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Unto Her and Angel Oreste Calleja.jpg

Does not appear to be own work (I could be mistaken). Possible copyvio. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 09:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jesuit Mission.jpg

Per COM:Redundant. Low res version of File:Ricci Guangqi 2.jpg Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 10:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clemente De Rosa.jpg

With all due respect for his loss, this file is out of scope. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a literary contest[1][2] promoted by local public schools[3][4] in his memory. There is a book[2] about this, too. Ogoorcs (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Theresa May and Sara Khan at MakingAStand launch.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted poster A1Cafel (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:STOP MOTION ANIMATION BOREK.webm

Not creative commons(not archived), No LR Eatcha (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GoPro Randomness Kite Montage.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sofia 2015, Bulgaria.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Soviet 122mm Howitzer D-30 2A18.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Timiryazevskaya Railway Station - Savelovsky Rail Terminal - Belorussky Terminal.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Steam locomotive OV 5067 - Armored Train - Armed Forces Museum, Moscow, Russia.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abandoned Expanded Clay LECA Plant, Moscow, Russia.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Siemens Desiro - Moscow Ring Railway. Первый день работы платформы МЦК Окружная - ЭС2Г «Ласточка».webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ostankino TV Tower (540 m) Observation Deck 337 meters.webm

No LR/Not Archived/No license review Link Dead ==> Video gets deleted Eatcha (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Саур Могила,-с.Степановка,2014г..webm

Video not available on YouTube , No Lr Nor Archived Eatcha (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MEETING LUTTE OUVRIERE ZENITH PARIS 20 (Nathalie Arthaud).webm

Video not found on source, no lr nor archived Eatcha (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hans Bemmann Fritz Berger pinx.jpg

Most likely copyvio, de:Fritz Berger (Maler) died only in 2002. Artsfriends (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Artsfriends, The upload of this picture was approved by the son of Fritz Berger Christian Berger. Hans Bemmann is my father and the painting is in my possession. Beamish

@Beamish: please provide permission via COM:OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Undelete if OTRS is ever received. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SABA MAKLAI.webm

Video unavailable and no lr Eatcha (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Why Do You Still Try.jpg

CSD tag removed. Originally uploaded as a fair use album cover - after deletion tag added, details changed to claim own work. Source is a dead link, and doubt it is uploader's own work to license out. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MC 澳門 Macau 路氹城 Cotai 澳門美獅美高梅 MGM Cotai 商場 Shopping mall 劇場 Theatre lobby March 2019 SSG 02.jpg

Main object of the photo is copyrighted packaging. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:José van der Veen.jpg

worse copy of File:José van der Veen - NK 2010.jpg Iruka13 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SunjangBadukStart.gif

Redundant to File:Sunjang Baduk starting position.png, which is much nicer Reyk (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use, not the same. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SunjangBadukStart.gif

Unused, and redundant to File:Sunjang_Baduk_starting_position.png, which shows the same board position but is better quality because it is larger and in colour. Reyk (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NEW YORK von Central Park aus-084.01.jpg

File already exists Umunschaas (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Мечеть с.Знаменское.jpg

Small, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio, found elsewhere online. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Satoru196 (talk · contribs)

Historical books. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Odette De Wynter.pdf

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Daca1234 (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prabhjeet singh.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Commons:Derivative works from book covers. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kỳ nhân Nguyễn Văn Thiên.png

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by LLaboureur (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Scofieldkeller (talk · contribs)

Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Laurikainen (talk · contribs)

Three images of one gent, two pictures of another and one picture of a third. None are own work.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, real source and real author is needed. Taivo (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Laurikainen (talk · contribs)

Historical documents, newspapers, coats of arms, illustration. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Laurikainen (talk · contribs)

The user keeps uploading files copied from the internet as Creative Commons own work. Even though many of the files could be PD if licensed correctly, this behaviour is showing clear disregard of Commons' copyright policies, as this behaviour has kept on going for years now as shown by the user's talk page. The user has block history on fi-wiki, and a block here on Commons would not be out of the question in my opinion.

Onsilla (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC) c Keep The following are PD-Art:[reply]

File:Jean Gabriel Tjaeder (kauppias).png
File:Kauppaneuvos Erik Solitander maalaus vuodelta 1800.png
File: Nils Johansson Aejmelaeus miniatyyri.png
File:Rovasti Fredric Mikaelsson LeBell 1752-1819.png
File:Pehr Klockars (s. 17552-1814), Porvoon valtiopäivät 1809.png
Keep stamps in Finland are PD
File:Valtiopäivämiesten postimerkit.jpg

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Laurikainen (talk · contribs)

Probably not own work; might be public domain.

File:Turun hovioikeuden sinetti.jpg
File:John Mortonin allekirjoitus.jpg
File:Suomen Pankin vaakuna.png
File:Suomen Pankin värilogo.png
File:Keisarin käskykirje Porvoon valtiopäivistä.jpg (title page of report from 1809)
File:Keisarillinen Suomen senaatti.jpg
File:Mannerheim-suvun porvarillinen vaakuna original.jpg
File:Allekirjoitus Japhet Kaitala, ja puumerkki.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Bengt Laurikain, puumerkki BL.png (signature)
File:C. Arvid. Krabbe.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Rehbinder Robert Henrik.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Carl Engman.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Carl Hulman.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Herman Höckert.png (signature)
File:P. Klockars.png (signature)
File:E. G. von Willebrand.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus J. Carlstedt.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus J. H. Linderth.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Eric Borgström.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Fredrik Lebell.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Ivar Wallenius.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Carl Fredrik Rotkirch.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Petter Silfverskiöld.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Le Baron Mannerheim.png (signature)
File:Allekirjoitus Jean G. Tjaeder.png (signature)
File:Nimikirjoitus Kustaa Cavén.png (signature)
File:Nimikirjoitus Japhet Kaitala.png (signature)
File:Kansilehti vuodelta 1879. Robert Castren, Finska Debutationen 1808-1809..png (title page of document from 1879)
File:Suomen lähetyskunnan muistomitali, nevskin ritarikunnan nauha.png
File:Suomen lähetyskunnan muistomitali, nevskin ritarikunnan nauhassa.png
File:Von Haartman aatelinen sukuvaakuna.png
File:Karl Fredrik Rotkirch.jpg (portrait by Mathilda Wilhelmina Rotkirch (d. 1842))
File:Von haartman vapaaherranvaakuna.jpg
File:Silfverskiöld No 1073.png
File:Von Willebrand-suvun Vapaaherran vaakuna.jpg
File:Krabbe original.jpg
File:Bengt Laurikainen (BL) puumerkki.png
File:Bengt Laurikainen (BL) puumerkkivaakuna.png
File:Bengt Laurikaisen allekirjoitus 2 trans.png (signature)
File:Bengt Laurikainen allekirjoitus trans.png (signature)
File:Keisarillisen majesteetin reglementi waihetus, laina ja depositioni conttorille 30. joulukuuta 18011.jpg (title page of document from 1811)

Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are signatures of people who died more than 70 years ago and can simply have their license corrected (PD-signature, PD-old, etc.). I've gone through and corrected some of them; will aim to go through the full set. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the signatures have been corrected, along with the scans of book/report title pages, and the portrait of Rotkirch. (I've indicated these above.) The crests and a few others, I'm less certain of. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coat of arms come from a public domain book of Swedish nobility. --RAN (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN, would you please edit the list above with the ones that you weren't able to clear, since you did run through these? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went through them again and the signatures and COAs all appear to be public domain. I would keep them all and change to PD-signature and PD-1996 for COAs. I have not found any in the list that are not public domain, if we any one else has one they think is not, post it here. --RAN (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion, all appear to be PD. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Eltiguere300 (talk · contribs)

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio, found online. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Eltiguere300 (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE images of non notable people.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; some taken from FB per md. --Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:العبيد ينتظرون الصف ليتم إخصائهم.jpg

Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:السوتال أو الشوتال .jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CarteLanguedoc13siecle.png

Duplicate of File:Cartes Occitanie.png vip (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Crescita batterica.jpg

Inserito nei caricamenti personali. File da destinare al concorso Wikimedia Science Competition Chiara.marraccini (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was not necessary, you can include the file with a simple category, but she already uploaded it again so just delete this one and we keep the other duplicate. There is no point in fixing this and deleting the other one now.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as duplicate of File:Crescita batterica su agar.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Semina campioni microbiologici.jpg

Errato caricamento sulla pagina personale. Foto destinata al concorso Wikimedia Science Competition Chiara.marraccini (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crescita batterica.jpg. Now the file has been already duplicated, just delete this one. Or we can make a redirect maybe.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as duplicate of File:Semina microbiologia.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Okamidori.jpg

Copyright violation Chacmool (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, found online. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Герб Владимирской области.gif

coat of arms with incorrect data: the ribbon should be light blue, see File:Coat of arms of Vladimiri Oblast.svg. 109.238.92.4 18:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Austria Mauthausen sub-camps.png

Many errors, from spelling to wrongly located cities and also dots that do not mark any sub-camp. Plus the use of modern Austria and a stellite image is wrong at the start. The map can not be edited properly to be correct. Thus the map should not be used and so deleted. A replacement can be a location map as in de:Liste der Außenlager des KZ Mauthausen or someone may draw a proper map from scratch. Don-kun (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 I support this deletion request. --IllCom (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. Use {{Fact disputed}} or upload corrected version. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:А.С.Пушкин.jpeg

Very poor quality LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Very poor quality" is not a valid reason for deletion. Per COM:Redundant:
Redundant or low-quality files only get deleted on a case-by-case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version (for more information, see Commons talk:Superseded images policy).
Before requesting a bad quality file for deletion, make sure that the file is not in use anymore by using GlobalUsage. You may replace uses of the file on local projects by superior versions, subject to the local project’s policies. If at the end of the discussion period a deletion is agreed upon and the file is still not in use, it can be deleted.
— in: COM:Redundant

However,

Delete per COM:PCP: Its quality indicates that it's not the original, and put doubt as to its origins. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MW2019.jpg

From the Gulf News, and obviously not copyright/license-free. Migsmigss (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Duck Project.jpeg

No freedom of panorama in South Korea, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 01:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rubber Duck in Seoul, October 14, 2014 (3).jpg

No freedom of panorama in South Korea, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 01:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rubber Duck in Seoul, October 14, 2014.jpg

No freedom of panorama in South Korea, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 01:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Viktoriia Motrichko 2.jpg

Copy of the image without correct licencing that appears on another website: https://business.facebook.com/ViktoriiaMotrichko/photos/a.526698947789342/737865916672643/?type=3&theater Deinocheirus (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2019121510005525 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 09:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just accepted permission for “File:Viktoriia_Motrichko_2.jpg” under ticket:2019121510005525. --Dogad75 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: permission confirmed. --Ə XPLICIT 01:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:TikTok Logo.svg

Taking that TikTok is a subsidiary of a Chinese company (ByteDance), and the logo is shared with its Chinese counterpart (抖音/Douyin). I believe that this logo follows COM:TOO China and per that, it might be a complex logo per China's law. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet the threshold of originality even in China. A music note is as simple as the matchstick man that was ruled as non-copyrightable. This is not a hanzi character, nor calligraphic. Opencooper (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consists of a couple simple curved lines, doesn't seem any more creative than the matchstick man. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment China’s TOO is very low. The colors used to bring out a “3D effect” is copyrightable. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Music note, of course, is not copyrightable, but this is not a music note and in my opinion is copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis does not meet the threshold of originality.166.255.147.248 23:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn’t seem to pass the TOO of China. Also, if it is copyright, we should make it lower quality instead of deleting it. In addition, that would mean that we have to delete every single other file of TikTok’s logo.Lutein678 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Low res or not, it is still copyrightable. Minorax (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A music note is not copyrightable.
Keep You can’t copyright a music note. 38.98.37.134 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)24.5.217.173 04:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to decide this case. On the one hand, the argument by 大诺史 seems quite convincing: "China’s TOO is very low. The colors used to bring out a “3D effect” is copyrightable". Although the logo is based on a music note, it is not just a note. The fancy design with the particular shape and colors (looks like an anaglyph image?) could be seen as copyrightable in countries with a low TOO. In Austria, for example, simple text logos were deemed copyrightable. But on the other hand we have participants in this discussion who state the opposite, "Doesn’t seem to pass the TOO of China".... and looking at COM:TOO China, I'm not quite sure whether this is more of a "matchstick man" case or already a "work of fine art". I think I'm leaning towards delete but leaving this open for the next admin to decide... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a copyright violation and TikTok has no servers based in China — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8805:BC82:2300:C8E3:1837:9EAA:CBD (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As mentioned in my reasoning above, TikTok and Douyin are sister companies that are using the same logo. Minorax (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: Side note: It seems that you have recently changed your user name from 大诺史 to Minorax (I appreciate it; much easier to handle for people like me who don't know the Chinese language). Maybe a small addition to your signature like (formerly 大诺史) for a transition period would be helpful so people don't get confused when you're referring to "my reasoning above" in discussions like this? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: Done :) Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 11:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gestumblindi (unclear copyright status, precautionary principle). --TadejM ^(t/p) 02:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Hard to tell whether it exceeds or not, very subjective. I will say it can be a simple logo but well some may say there is some complexity. It isn't a 汉字 and there isn't much guidance. Per COM:PCP delete will be safest. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not copyrightable and simple also Douyin is not the same as TikTok71.173.78.70 23:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no copyright as its above the TOC of China Dq209 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly uncopyrighted as its seen in many music sheets64.222.180.90 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question The TikTok Logo with its particular color scheme and shape (it's not a generic note) is seen in "many music sheets"? Really? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: As raised to me by CptViraj before, it seems that the IPs might be the same person. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 03:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Logo was designed in a manner creative enough to push it above the threshold of originality in China. --Ə XPLICIT 02:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hany Yasser.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, Facebook EXIF data. --Ə XPLICIT 02:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:El Greco - The Adoration of the Name of Jesus - WGA10432.jpg

This file is not original painting Xpeye (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it not? Are you an expert on El Greek paintings?--Adamt 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oryginalny obraz wygląda https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/k/r/12/09/b0/4e1bee52a536d_p.jpg?1460647350 czyli plik El Greco 001.jpg na Wikipedii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tu wygląda tak https://www.artehistoria.com/es/obra/alegoría-de-la-liga-santa-0 To tylko kwestia aparatu --Adamt 19:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ale tak jak na Wikipedii nie wygląda nigdzie. Poza tym na moim zdjęciu widać cały obraz z ramą a więc jest mniejsze prawdopodobieństwo modyfikacji. A chyba zależy panu, aby zachować wierność z oryginałem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czyli tu chodzi o to by było Twoje zdjęcie. Tak zależy mi na tym by zdjęcie było wierne z oryginałem ale jak widac trudno ustalić, które jest to najprawdziwsze. Oba zdjęcia pochodzą z portali o sztuce. Nie można kasować wersji tylko dlatego, że nie ma ramy. Po za tym obrazy w ramach wcale nie wyglądają lepiej w artykułach. --Adamt 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mi nie chodzi, aby było moje zdjęcie, tylko najwierniejsze z oryginalnym. W sieci znalazłem 6 wersji a na pewno jest więcej. Nie chcę, abyś wstawił zdjęcie z ramą, ale najbliższe tej wersji. Tak się składa,że zdjęcia obrazów w ramach najjwierniej oddają kolorystykę dzieła — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use Template:Fact disputed if necessary. Ruthven (msg) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:El Greco - The Adoration of the Name of Jesus - WGA10432.jpg

This is not original painting 5.173.2.148 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it not? You don't give an argument. Are you an expert on El Greek paintings?--Adamt 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept: per COM:INUSE and this is probably not the right place to discuss the authenticity of the image, especially without any kind of rationale. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Small Boss .jpg

This file was initially tagged by Missvain as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Deep deco time.jpg

it's written m/s metres/second....while it should be metres/minute 46.21.176.206 22:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --Krd 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Anonymous - KONY 2012 Warning.webm

Copyright violation (the protest videos/images). We should not trust an unkown group. Eatcha (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Insufficient sourcing information of protest videos. --Ə XPLICIT 02:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jo Han-sun in 2017.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Fæ as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Posted to source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bDouoGUGbk) without a Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) statement. Only free files are allowed on Commons. Fæ (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is this archive version which does not show a CC-BY release either, and that seems the only archived version. --Fæ (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 02:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tuzimunflag.jpg

Official symbol. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Replaced with a PD tags of Montenegro. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, A1Cafel found correct license. Taivo (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tuzimunflag.jpg

Not in use, SVG version is available at File:Flag_of_Tuzi.svg Ђидо (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: While this isn't in use on other projects, it is in use as the source for other versions of the file, so deleting it would be problematic. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pompeo Gatti Grami.jpg

I am the owner of this picture, but my cousin, nephew of Pompeo Gatti Grami, asked me to cancel the file for privacy reasons. Giovanni Sessa (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no reason for deletion. --Krd 11:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Криворучко1.jpg

The original uploader is not the author, the depicted person is not as well. Photographer's permission required. VLu (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

В оригинальном файле указано, что Орест Криворучко и есть автор. Но вот каким образом он перевёл фотографию в общественное достояние остаётся загадкой. --Venzz (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:國立宜蘭大學生物資源學院標題.jpg

Above threshold of originality in Taiwan COM:TOO Taiwan Atomicdragon136 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Ballet of Change- Piccadilly Circus, London.jpg

This file was initially tagged by HouseOfChange as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Metadata says copyright held by Steve Forrest/Insight-Visual. Not "own work" of Paul Atherton - In use on several wikis, so regular DR. Achim (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this image as a potential copyvio. I believe it is a good-faith mistake by the uploader Paul Atherton/Amanda Paul, as shown by their mention of the photographer's name, as in several other files they uploaded as "own work." A Google search for "Steve Forrest Insight-Visual" leads to a UK professional photographer. Based on a Google image search, the largest version online, also credited to Steve Forrest, is an upload to Paul Atherton's IMDB page. Google Image search also shows this photo is being used widely on the web as a free, uncredited image -- I am not sure if that makes things better or worse. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image given to me for free use by Photographer. Commissioned by me for event. What's required to address? Paul Atherton (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Atherton: : Túrelio explained the solution quite well here regarding a different image uploaded as "own work." You need to get explicit written permission from the creator for the free-use rights Commons demands -- fortunately, there are tools here to help you do all that is needed. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luis Avilés Director 01 - Minuto Final.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movie-related photo. Other similar files by this uploader have permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Requires OTRS verification. --Storkk (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Minuto Final tras cámaras 04.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) — Racconish ^💬 03:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movie-related photo. Other similar files by this uploader have permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Requires OTRS verification. --Storkk (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Afida Turner.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an OTRS email received for “File:Afida_Turner.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2019121110006273. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 01:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If OTRS ever becomes sufficient, this can be undeleted. --Storkk (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tall Ships Festival (14847729919).jpg

Also:

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The duck was created and first "published" in the Netherlands, then later moved (by water) to the US. I haven't read up much on FoP the last few years, so can't remember if that does anything...--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most nations care about FoP in foreign nations, even if the photograph was taken there. A photograph of a copyrighted artwork taken and published in the US is going to be a derivative of the artwork in the US, no matter where the artwork was first published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Prosfilaes. --Storkk (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Theresa May in 2016

Heavily used file, starting DR to allow for discussion.

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See photographer's website: https://i-images.co/13268 –BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is heavily used on all wikis. I am personally following almost all the pages on pl.wiki regarding British PMs and I got more than 4 notifications that this picture is going to be deleted. Should we be swaping this picture for some other one or is there a way to keep this picture in commons? Nadzik (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can be replaced by File:Former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, Ms. Theresa May, at Hyderabad House, in New Delhi on November 07, 2016 (5) (cropped).jpg. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be absolutely no need to replace the image. AlbanGeller (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{OGL-3.0}} [6] AlbanGeller (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The file was published in February 2017, but the photo of Theresa May was published in August 2016. It is a case of Commons:License laundering. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Her Majesty's government is licence laundering? AlbanGeller (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  It this case, yes. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Not in this case. There is no way the government would have published the image under the OGL licence without the permission of those who took the photo. AlbanGeller (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Then please show the permission via COM:OTRS. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corkythehornetfan, would you be so kind as to clarify how you obtained the high-resolution version of this image? AlbanGeller (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure it was from the Prime Minister’s website at the time, but that was a year ago and I don’t honestly remember. Corky 03:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: You mean this page? --219.79.96.26 07:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: heavily used file without any complains by right owners. Original file published by government under OGL, so they obviously own the rights. Trusted uploader of highres image. No clear copyvio - no clear reason for deletion. --Indeedous (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Theresa May in 2016

Re-open the request because I disagree with the closing admin. We found the image is actually taken by Andrew Parsons / i-Images and it is copyrighted (in August 2016), earlier then the publication date of the source (in February 2017). Sometimes, the UK Government will use materials from the third party. In this case, you will need to obtain the permission from the copyright holders. Furthermore, heavily used file and no complains by right owner is not a good reason to keep the file, the latter statement violates COM:PRP.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Does not "add new information or clarification", so should not be renominated per Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This person has been going around deleting all UK related images cause he does not understand what open government means, i ignored it thus far cause i have no interest in ~~working~~ volunteering for this shit site again but this is too far, a lot of us actually worked hard in getting those images, checked all the boxes, made the right ticks before adding those images here, if your small brain doesn't understand how licensing works then maybe you should consider joining the english wikipedia instead, they have quite a few to those aspiring admins there..let me put it simply as when it was first nominated, images may be taken by professional photographers hired and paid for by the UK government but ultimately the rights are owned by the Uk government and they can choose to release it, you got a lot of great images deleted because of your lack of understanding on how this work and honestly i don't have the time to go through all that, get them restored.. the ONLY time we have ever removed OGL licensed images was when the photographers themselves DIRECTLY contacted the otrs to get them removed, we have blocked/banned users on commons for not following or adhering to the rules and i hope an admin takes action because users who keep nominating images for deletion deserve to be blocked..--Ste moc 02:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The employees list of photos: https://i-images.co/13268. Photographer Andrew Parsons is an employee from i-Images, but there is no proof that the UK Government hire him. If yes, then you can show the permission via COM:OTRS. The EXIF data clearly said "Licensed to i-Images Picture Agency". This is enough to have suspect on the copyright status. IMO these images should be deleted per COM:PRP unless OTRS permission is received. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the arguments for and against the DR put all the files in the same bag. On one side, the rationale for the deletion is based on the fact that the high-resolution photo is clearly not free, which is a very good argument. But it extrapolates to say that the low-resolution version published by the UK government in a document under OGL is not free either, which is a weaker argument. On the other side, the rationale against the deletion is that the low-resolution version included in the government document is validly under the OGL, because it can be assumed that the government cleared the copyright for that version, or if it did not then that's the problem of the government. Which is a good argument. But it extrapolates to say that the high-resolution photo, which was apparently never published by the government and which was apparently never offered under the OGL, would somehow be under the OGL. Which is a weaker argument. Instead of those "all good" or "all wrong" approaches, I suggest to accept the basic argument of each side and to reject the extrapolations of each side. In other words, I suggest to distinguish between the files and to keep the files derived from the OGL document and to delete the files derived from the non-free photo. Therefore: Delete the 9 October 2018 version of File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg. It has a very clear notice of copyright and it is not under a free license. The uploader did not disclose the source. And, when asked to disclose it, in the previous DR, he said he does not remember. Using the supposition that it might have been on the Prime Minister's website, a quick research did not find this full HR version (a small cropped version is found). Basically, this 9 October 2018 version is an image without a source, thus without evidence of free licensing. Such images must be deleted. An unsupported hypothesis that it was posted on gov.uk should not be made, but even if it were made for the sake of discussion, it remains that the content of the gov.uk website is available under the OGL "except where otherwise stated". And this image clearly states that it is all rights reserved to Andrew Parsons and i-Images and the instructions for its use refer to fees. It can also be noted that the requirement of disclosing the actual source is not only a condition of the policy of Commons. Aknowledgement of "the source [...] by including or linking to any attribution statement" is also a strict condition of the OGL for the validity of any use claiming that something is under the OGL. Weak keep the 27 September 2018 version of File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg. This image is sourced and links to a .pdf document that is under the OGL. However, I'm not sure how this .jpg was created. The first file uploaded to Commons from the .pdf source seems to have been the .png file File:Theresa May.png (uploaded 2 February 2017). If the .jpg file uploaded 27 September 2018 was also validly derived from the .pdf source, it can be kept. Delete File:Theresa May Official.jpg. The 9 October 2018 version of this file was uploaded by the same user as the unsourced 9 October 2018 version of "File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg", discussed above, was likely extracted from it and has the same exif. It would be instructive to know if there was something in the exif of the 8 June 2017 version of this file. Is it possible to view it? Its uploader stated that the source was "www.gov.uk/government/people/theresa-may" (here is an archived copy from the same era). The source statement seems unverified. Archived copies of that gov.uk webpage show a small cropped version. They do not seem to have the version of the Commons file. Unless someone can find evidence that the Commons version was there somewhere, it should be deleted. Delete File:Theresa May Official (cropped).jpg. The two versions of this file were extracted respectively from the two versions of "File:Theresa May Official.jpg", just discussed. So, idem. Delete File:Theresa May crop.jpg. The source is false. It is not from the .pdf document of The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf. As indicated in other fields and as can be seen from the exif data, it is extracted from the unsourced 9 October 2018 version of "File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg" (which was renamed from "File:Theresa May portrait.jpg"), discussed above. Delete File:Theresa May portrait (cropped).jpg. The source is false. As indicated in other fields, it is extracted from the unsourced 9 October 2018 version of "File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg". Same situation as "File:Theresa May crop.jpg", just discussed, except that the exif of "File:Theresa May portrait (cropped).jpg" was altered to hide the copyright information. Delete File:Theresa May official portrait (cropped).jpg. The source is false. As indicated in other fields and as can be seen from the exif data, it is extracted from the unsourced 9 October 2018 version of "File:Theresa May official portrait.jpg". Same situation as "File:Theresa May crop.jpg", discussed above. Delete File:Theresa May election infobox.jpg. The source is false. It is not from "www.gov.uk/government/people/theresa-may", which, at the date of this upload, did not include any photo [7] (and, in previous versions, included the small cropped version already noted). As indicated in other fields, it is extracted from the 9 October 2018 version of "File:Theresa May Official.jpg", discussed above. Keep File:Theresa May cropped.png (26 March 2018). It is sourced from the .pdf document. Restore File:Theresa May.png. It is apparently our only uncropped image from the .pdf document and it was the first version of the photo uploaded to Commons. Of all versions, this one would be the safest. (Strange that it's the one that got deleted.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I’ve been in contact with the author and he is sending in permission to use the photo. The UK government does not own the works, Andrew Parsons does. I’ll give an update once it’s been sent. Corky 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – After communication with the photographer, he wants paid for the picture use before he’ll send permission. £350 for it. I can forward the email to OTRS to prove the UK government doesn’t own copyright. Corky 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per ticket: 2020052610009057 (I’ve written a longer note for other OTRS agents to read in that ticket). No evidence of being licensed under Open Government License (”third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license”). We require evidence or permission for the copyright owner for these files, which appears to be Andrew Parsons. The government has not retained the copyright of the image from the photographer, and can therefore not sub-license these under the OGL. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Petronell Vorster (talk · contribs)

Published under self-cc-by-sa while it's not actually "own work". References to sources that can't be checked on-line and aren't likely to publish CC-work

File:Pieter Pieterse.jpg
File:I. de Vries.jpg
File:Lulu Latsky.jpg Keep (PD South Africa per 1-1-2000)
File:J. Suasso de Lima.jpg Keep (PD 19th century)
File:Ronel de Goede.jpg
File:Marius Crous.jpg
File:Dawie Couzyn.jpg
File:Johan Combrink.jpg
File:Willemien Brümmer.jpg
File:Willemien Brummer jpg.jpg
File:Hendrik Brand.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Helen Blackmore.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:Benjamin Selwyn Paulse.jpg
File:Pastoor Scholls trek sy toga uit en ander stories.jpg
File:Pirow Bekker.jpg
File:Christina Susanna van Zyl.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:Michael Albertus Smit.jpg Keep (PD per c.1990)
File:'n Jong André P. Brink.jpg Keep (PD per c.2010)
File:P.J. Haasbroek.jpg
File:A.J. Hanekom.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:T.O. Honiball.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2015)
File:Imker Hoogenhout skrywer.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Theo W. Jandrell.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2015)
File:Holmer Johanssen.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2015)
File:Wilhelm Grütter.jpg
File:Eitemal-Willem Erlank. .jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1982)
File:Dr. S.J. du Toit.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:'n Jong P.W. Botha (Skrywer).jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Johann Botha.jpg
File:'n Jong Boerneef.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:Dawie du Toit.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:Philip du Plessis.jpg Keep (PD per c.1990)
File:Ben de Wet.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:W.M. de Villiers .jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:E. de Roubaix.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1982)
File:Robert de Kersauson de Pennendreff.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1971)
File:Cornelius de Jong.jpg Keep (PD 19th century)
File:C.J. Grové.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:'n Jong E.B. Grosskopf.jpg Keep (PD per c.1970)
File:J.J. Groeneweg.jpg Keep (PD per c.1980)
File:Nita Griessel.jpg
File:Ouer Jan Greshoff.jpg Keep (PD per c.2010)
File:Arthur Fula.jpg Keep (PD per 2005)
File:J.M. Friedenthal.jpg Keep (PD per c.1995)
File:A. Francken.jpg Keep (PD per 1982)
File:Joha Fourie.jpg
File:Ella Fischer.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:G. Eybers.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Theo Engelenberg.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Katrien Engelbrecht.jpg
File:J.G Engela.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:S.G. du Toit.jpg Keep (PD 19th century)
File:Abel J. Coetzee.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Floris Brown.jpg
File:Roelf Britz.jpg Keep (PD per 1990s)
File:S.P.E. Boshoff.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:Dricky Beukes.jpg
File:Chris Barnard (skrywer).jpg
File:Jong Hennie Aucamp.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:George Louw.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:E.J.M. Fraser.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:Jan Fick.jpg Keep (PD per 2000s)
File:D’Arbez.jpg Keep (PD per 1960s)
File:Ben Conradie.jpg
File:Izak Coetzee.jpg Keep (PD per 1990s)
File:Cecile Cilliers.jpg
File:P.J. Cillié.jpg
File:Jan F.E. Celliers.jpg Keep (PD per 1990)
File:Frank Brownlee.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:J.J. Brits.jpg
File:Lulu Brewis.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:M.C. Botha.jpg
File:P.W. Bosman.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1940)
File:P.J. Bosman.jpg
File:Eunice Bosman.jpg Keep (PD per 1990s)
File:F.W. Boonzaier.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:Margaret Bakkes.jpg
File:Willem C.W. Kamp.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Pierre J. Fourie..jpg
File:A.D. Keet.jpg
File:J.D. Kestell.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-1987)
File:Tryna du Toit..jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Antjie Krog.jpg
File:Skrywer Mikro.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Lynette Scott-Blignault.jpg
File:Sue van Waart.jpg
File:Ernest Turner.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Konstant Kamerling.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Snylyn.png Keep (not own work, but other version of CIRCLE LINES.svg)
File:John Miles.jpg
File:D.F. Malherbe.jpg Keep (PD per c.1990)
File:Wille Martin.jpg
File:Anna M. Louw.jpg
File:Jong Koos Kombuis.jpg
File:Wilhelm Knobel.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:Rosa Keet.jpg
File:Kannemeyer.jpg
File:Joan Helene Hambidge.jpg
File:Jeanne Goosen.jpg
File:'n Jong Elisabeth Eybers.jpg Keep (PD 1-1-2007)
File:Chris Euvrard.jpg
File:Hélène de Klerk.jpg Keep (PD 1-1-2003)
File:Sheila Cussons.jpg
File:Johannes Brill.jpg Keep (PD 1-1-1982)
File:Stella Branca.jpg
File:Stephan Bouwer.jpg
File:Jong D.B. Bosman.jpg Keep (PD 1-1-1982)
File:Klaas Bonsma.jpg Keep (PD 1980s)
File:PeterBlum.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2005)
File:T.H. Blok.jpg Keep (PD per 2000s)
File:C.F. Beyers-Boshoff.jpg
File:Berna Ackerman.jpg
File:Marie Linde.jpg Keep (PD 1-1-1982)
File:Marlene le Roux.jpg
File:Geert Lampen.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2000)
File:Kobus van Zyl.jpg Keep (PD per 1-1-2019)

Vera ^(talk) 15:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Petronell Vorster (talk · contribs)

No proof of 'Copyrighted free use" license

File:De Waal Venter.jpg
File:Kootjie van den Heever.jpg
File:H.P van Coller.jpg
File:Anchien Troskie.jpg
File:Barnard J. Toerien.jpg
File:Leon Strydom.jpg
File:Fritz Steyn.jpg
File:Elsabe Steenberg.jpg
File:Jan Spies.jpg
File:Sita (Afrikaanse skrywer).jpg Keep (PD per 1990s)
File:Winnie Rust.jpg
File:Kowie Rossouw.jpg
File:Dirk Richard.jpg
File:Joan Retief.jpg
File:Koos Prinsloo.jpg
File:Wessel Pretorius.jpg
File:Freda Plekker.jpg Keep (PD per 2010s)
File:Dalene Matthee.jpg
File:Maretha Maartens.jpg
File:Nico Luwes.jpg
File:ALETTA LÜBBE.jpg

Vera ^(talk) 15:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very sloppy uploads, but also a much too broad deletion request. South African copyright: "The copyright in photographs and cinematograph films expires 50 years from the end of the year in which the work (1) is made available to the public with the copyright owner's consent; or (2) is first published, whichever is longer. If a work is neither made available to the public or published within 50 years of the making of the work, its copyright expires 50 years from the end of the year in which the work was made." Several of these photographs are in the Public Domain. Vysotsky (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the first 20 images on this list. Eight images were in the Public Domain in South Africa. Vysotsky (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked 64 images on this list so far. 44 images of these 64 were in the Public Domain in South Africa. Shotgun approach deletion request? Vysotsky (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finished quick glance through all images. I marked every image that was clearly PD-South-Africa. Vysotsky (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, except those redescribed and relicensed by Vysotsky. --Sealle (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Otto_Adolf_Eichmann0.jpg

No reason why PD-Japan should apply. Anonymous-EU needs some kind of evidence that the image is anonymous, however none at all is presented. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A typical ChrisiPK nomination, compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kafka.jpg. The file description here mentions four works on Eichman. If the 1916 school photographer is not mentioned there, he is unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do these four works really mention no author at all? Who is Ronald Leo Ricado? -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An author is named in the description, so it's obviously not anonymous enough for {{Anonymous-EU}}. The originally included {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} would only apply if first publication in Japan could be shown. --Latebird (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (PS: Personal attacks against the nominator don't change any of that.)[reply]

Kept. Anonymous-EU. I removed PD-Japan-oldphoto. Nothing new since Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Otto_Adolf_Eichmann0.jpg

Renomination of an image that I !voted to keep. I changed my mind because there is no clear source for the identification. This could be a British school photo from the 1960's. See also User talk:Yann#File:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two information. First of all, this photograph is not in the one having taken a picture of the student in the 1960's. And, he is not Adolf Eichmann in another. The person of this photograph is Josef Mengele. He was a person notorious as a doctor of the Nazis's concentration camp. When the documentary program that TV station ZDF in Germany produced 11 years ago is broadcast in Japan, I have the memory of seeing this photograph. I found the information about this documentary program. "Hitlers Helfer" Josef Mengele - Der Todesarzt (1998)--Corpse Reviver (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP this file keeps getting re-nominated; it's eichman, 1916; the image is from a book about him, the book treats the image as PD; unknown author. presumably they did their research correctly? i have trouble with assume good faith, when it seems to conveniently result in erasing material about historic persons associated with controversial subject/subjects about which people have strong personal feelings. keep & stop re-nominating! Lx 121 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what book it is from. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i've spent some time researching the material here. key points:

1. the file was from ja wiki; original uploader probably had limited english abilities

2. the file description/info lists a series of books. i cannot tell from google books' limited access if any or all of them use this particular image. from what i can tell, standard practice in published works appears to regard such older images (childhood photos of long-dead nazis) as fair game: public domain, author unknown, no photocredit needed, no copyright concerns.

3. there is no Ronald Leo Ricado; he's nowhere on google, google image, & google book searches, there isn't a Ronald Leo RicaRdo either.

i would assume that somehow the upload form info got garbled. it might be a composite of names, might refer to the uploader, might be a lot of things; the one thing Ronald Leo Ricado doesn't appear to be, is the author of this 93-year old photo of a dead nazi.

as to whether it really is eichmann or not; it looks plausibly like him & this site: http://www.mosflo.ru/ seems to regard the image as authentic. but that's a separate issue: correct identification of the subject. it's not what we are debating here. the picture is not of "1960's british schoolboys"; the cut of the clothing is very wrong. see especially the jacket of the child to eichy's left & the boy in the wide-collared white shirt & kerchief-tie-thing behind him. the hairstyles aren't really "right" for 60's brit schoolboys either

in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can reasonably assume that the author is unknown, (& long dead). the image meets the criteria to survive on wmc. the requirement to delete in this case should be to prove that the author is not unknown/anonymous, & not the other way around. how exactly would one go about "proving" the negative (that the author is unknown) anyway?

(for that matter, considering the photo is 93 years old, if you wanted to assume that Ronald Leo Ricado was the author; then it should be necessary to identify that person & prove that he did not die less than 70 years ago)

if we really want to set the bar so high; it could be used to censor & remove a great deal on historic material: to really play it safe, maybe we should delete all works, author unknown, that are less than 125 years old?

(taking that as a maximum human lifespan)

as to whether it really is eichmann or not; it looks plausibly like him & this site:

http://www.mosflo.ru/

seems to regard the image as authentic.

but that's a separate issue: correct identification of the subject. it's not what we are debating here. the picture is not of "1960's british schoolboys"; the cut of the clothing is very wrong. see especially the jacket of the child to eichy's left & the boy in the wide-collared white shirt & kerchief-tie-thing behind him. the hairstyles aren't really "right" for 60's brit schoolboys either

we have exactly 4 face pics of the man; this is one of them. & it still bothers me, a lot, that this approach, of repeatedly nominating the image (& other, simillarly "uncomfortable" material) is (possibly, sometimes) being used as a way to "sanitize" wmc (& history).

Lx 121 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper source, not even a clear identification of the subject. In essence, we have a photograph taken at an unknown date (maybe 1916) at an unknown location (maybe Linz, Austria, maybe not) showing unknown schoolboys (maybe Eichmann, maybe Mengele, maybe neither). Although I don't see anything off-hand that would make Mosflu.ru an unreliable site (except their notorious non-sourcing of images), I also don't see anything that would make it more reliable than User:Corpse Reviver's comment above. The haircut of the child in the center is in any case very similar to Mengele's on this photo. Lupo 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now there is a source, a book - it is used in the German Wikipedia for over a year, so there is a high propability, that a false picture will be disputed there. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What book? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry this was an erroneous (spelling?) edit of mine... - as "source" is a collection of important books about Eichmann given - not "one" book. Perhaps one of this books is the source?? But this collection of books as "source" makes no sense. If this is the main problem: I can send an e-mail to a research center concerned with antisemitism in Berlin (Technical University). I had contact with them some time ago. Perhaps they have the necessary time and knowledge to identify this image (they are not experts especially on Eichmann, as far as I know.) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an e-mail to this center, hopefully I will get an answer in the next 10 days - so please wait with a decision. Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion; broken DR. --Indeedous (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg

Incorrect file name.According to the video uploaded on YouTube, you can be sure that the person in the picture is Josef Mengele.I think this image file should be deleted or renamed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkvul9SENoA

Chacmool (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion; feel free to correct it. --Indeedous (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Polizeibataillon 101 in Łódź.jpg

No publication information given. Therefore, no evidence that PD-Polish would apply or that photograph was PD on the URAA date. USHMM claims copyright Buidhe (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be PD-EU that applies? Which it seems to satisfy? AFAICT USHMM is not claiming copyright here. Just where the photo came from.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies 70 years after publication. It would have had to be published before 1950. Again, without publication information, copyright status cannot be determined. Buidhe (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's pretty safe to assume that a photo like that would have been published in a newspaper at the time. Renata3 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons policy is pretty clear that we can't keep an image just because someone thinks that it may be free, we need actual evidence. Personally I doubt that it was due to the censorship and paper restrictions at the time. Buidhe (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has all the hallmarks of an "official" picture. Such pictures were published widely at the time in the press as propaganda to showcase popular support of the Nazi cause. The pictures of camps and atrocities -- those were not published. Renata3 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of them may have been published, but not all. (Newspapers from the 1940s actually have few photographs due to paper rationing). Many similar photographs are from archives, such as this one and presumably wouldn't be free without release. Additionally, publication in Germany is unlikely to count towards PD-Polish. The fact that an organization is claiming copyright means that we would have to have good reason to disregard its claim, not just speculation. Buidhe (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Buidhe. --Storkk (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]