Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/21

Vandalism upload. 117Avenue (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedyeleted: Vandalism Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo from 1951 is likely not the uploader's own work. I assume that it was scanned out of some book . High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Westenhöfer was my father's godfather. This is a scan of an original portrait still in my possession, and was taken by a (long dead) photographer who was friend of my family. The photo was hanging in our house (signed: E. Kausel).

Kept: I close this DR before the official ending period. Although I think it was not your father's godfather, I think this is true. The image does not appear on the web and it is of a sufficient high resolution High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this file has no content Oxyman (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Bot upload error Denniss (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. One of the people in this photo no longer plays in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunic Official Band Photo 2010.jpg

photo not approved by Lunic, LLC. please remove. Cybersuicide (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunic Official Band Photo 2010.jpg

This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The other person was obviously in this band so this is kept if soemone wants to show the band's history. Denniss (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement Estrogenic (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mash-up of the work of two different photographers. Neither photographer gave permission for their work to be used or edit in such a manner. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrogenic (talk • contribs)

Deleted -FASTILY 07:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. Two of the people in this photo no longer play in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunic Official Band Photo 2012.jpg

This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I declined the rename request, because the file should either be deleted or kept, renaming it would not be within policy. As for this current request (1) it's in the wrong place (2) the image has historical merit, showing the band before it became a solo act, but (3) The original source clearly shows a copyright symbol, and we don't know whether the uploader owns the copyright (although there is EXIF data)- the artist may own the copyright, but once it's released with a free licence, that cannot be revoked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the women in the photo were never band members of Lunic; they were live musicians for a few shows. Lunic has employed many live musicians. The photo should not have been named "official band photo" by me. It was a mistake. This file does not accurately reflect the Musical Artist, Lunic, and negatively impacts her trademark and branding. This photo is 4 years old, named incorrectly, and, thus, Obsolete. The file has been replaced by a better version because Lunic is not a group. She is and always has been a solo recording artist. The photo misrepresents her brand and her trademark and is therefore an Orphan. The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. The photo is also Unencyclopedic. The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Estrogenic (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 speedy keep 1) This is not Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. 2) If the file is named incorrectly you can use {{Rename}}. 3) File being 4 years old is definitely not a reason for deletion, this is not Wikinews, this is Wikimedia Commons. 4) Truth can be "negative", it is not a reason for deletion.

This request is closed kept as above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this photo as it is outdated and no longer accurate. Two of the people in this photo no longer play in the band Lunic. Lunic is a solo artist. Thank you for your time. Estrogenic (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunic Official Band Photo 2012.jpg

This is not an official image and the photographer did not give permission to have it posted. Lunic is a solo artist, not a band. She plays live shows with other musicians, but does not have any official band members. Photo is a misrepresentation of the artist. Estrogenic (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I declined the rename request, because the file should either be deleted or kept, renaming it would not be within policy. As for this current request (1) it's in the wrong place (2) the image has historical merit, showing the band before it became a solo act, but (3) The original source clearly shows a copyright symbol, and we don't know whether the uploader owns the copyright (although there is EXIF data)- the artist may own the copyright, but once it's released with a free licence, that cannot be revoked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Kept: Kept for archival purposes, the band once had two or three members. Denniss (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the women in the photo were never band members of Lunic; they were live musicians for a few shows. Lunic has employed many live musicians. The photo should not have been named "official band photo" by me. It was a mistake. This file does not accurately reflect the Musical Artist, Lunic, and negatively impacts her trademark and branding. This photo is 4 years old, named incorrectly, and, thus, Obsolete. The file has been replaced by a better version because Lunic is not a group. She is and always has been a solo recording artist. The photo misrepresents her brand and her trademark and is therefore an Orphan. The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. The photo is also Unencyclopedic. The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project. Estrogenic (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 speedy keep 1) This is not Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. 2) If the file is named incorrectly you can use {{Rename}}. 3) File being 4 years old is definitely not a reason for deletion, this is not Wikinews, this is Wikimedia Commons. 4) Truth can be "negative", it is not a reason for deletion.

This request is closed kept as above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

low res piece of file:Жозеф Грасси-Прасковья Юрьевна Гагарина.jpg Shakko (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nominator rubin16 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actualización ya que esta información no es correcta Malohe12 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The file contains a lot of logos, most of which are unfree. Taivo (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE due to low technical quality. In addition, questionable authorship per source and author entries. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and no license at all. JuTa 22:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE due to low technical quality. In addition, questionable authorship per source and author entries. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and no license at all. JuTa 22:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because its a copyright violation Maunus (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not defending this either way, just making a comment. Perhaps User:173.61.231.157 and the uploader of the image (User:XDBKx) are one and the same person, and perhaps this person is Chief Pedro Guanikeyu Torres himself who took his own picture... That is, maybe all 4 of these are the same individual.... (I speculate this because of this HERE). I know that editing articles about yourself is discouraged and frown upon at wikipedia, but it would also mean that the image would not be a copyright violation, right? Just a comment. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Yeah and perhaps chief Torres is also the official plympic photograpoher who took the photo of Elise Hernandez and the flickr photographer Louis Enrique Gomez Sanchez/. This guy is uploading other peoples photos he finds on the net as his own work.

•  Delete. 294 × 447 pixels and no exif. Admin may wish to speedy any other uploads that are similar. If he is the true creator then larger images and exif shouldn't be a problem for him. --Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because its a copyright violation Maunus (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because its a copyright violation. Maunus (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need some evidence for that. Any prior publication? --Túrelio (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But given all the user's other uploads which are in a comparable low resolution and where has been proven by MetaData, Watermarks or ImageSearch that the uploader was not honest, we can ask the uploader to clarify the situation. -- Rillke^(q?) 07:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Only 468 × 640 pixels and no exif. If he is the creator then larger images with exif shouldn't be a problem.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user self-portrait of rather bad quality. Rosenzweig τ 00:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dupe File:李肇甫.jpg shizhao (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Flower Matango Takashi Murakami Versailles.jpg
• File:Kiki dans le salon de Vénus à Versailles (5278636432).jpg
• File:Les nouveaux habits de lEmpereur (5280932917).jpg
• File:Max et Shimon à Versailles (5281532544).jpg
• File:Miss KO2 Takashi Murakami Versailles.jpg
• File:Murakami à Versailles (5215234857).jpg
• File:Murakami à Versailles (5215288683).jpg
• File:Murakami à Versailles (5215349657).jpg
• File:Oval Buddha Takashi Murakami at Versailles.jpg
• File:Takashi Murakami - Flower Matango - Versailles.jpg

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France & as long as I know, copyrights of art works of Takashi Murakami are managed by Kaikai Kiki Co.,Ltd. Takabeg (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, self promotory and unused. Also photographer is probably unknown. Moros y Cristianos 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio http://www.mijnmuzeval.nl/voorstellingen/voorstelling/event/frank-honken-454.html Kattenkruid (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The management of the theatre obviously didn't make this picture. It was uploaded by Frank Honken's asscociate, so who's to say that he didn't take this photo and gave the theatre permission to use it on their site? That said: it is far more likely that a professional photographer made this picture, but we are working on a basis of trust here and don't investigate beyond the obvious. EvilFreD _overleg 21:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sculpture is not older than 150 years.-> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/dehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/de Haffitt (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep There is Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Germany. Tm (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per {{FoP-Germany}}. INeverCry 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE, unused and possibly a copyright problem, as this seems to be a reproduction of a painting. Uploader never answered my question about (User talk:Awini) original artist. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE and possibly also a copyright problem, if the watermark (lower right) means it's a capture from TV or similar. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non free file uploaded under CC-by-SA TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this image?? I really don't understand.It is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshsingh.1992 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 June 2013‎ (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is from the newspaper the copyright belongs to them, and not you. Hence it is not your own work TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wish of user Kersti (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a screenshot of proprietary software Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, out of scope. Savh^ñ 10:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright issues. the given source (http://www.fotosmulders.nl/) does not show any pictures of Micky Hoogendijk without the (C) copyright tag. LeeGer (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request by uploader : a better version already exists, File:Gavage industriel des canards à foie gras en cages collectives, France 2012.jpg — Racconish ^Tk 11:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

private info share 1.23.141.78 13:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be taken from here: http://us.fotolog.com/eleogato/22097140/ Ytoyoda (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be copyright violation though I can't find a source... Liangent (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be copyright violation though I can't find a source... Liangent (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be copyright violation though I can't find a source... Liangent (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be copyright violation though I can't find a source... Liangent (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not de minimis. Leyo 16:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No valid author, uploaded for vandalism: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montfort-en-Chalosse&diff=94271790&oldid=94263422 Peter17 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably replaced by File:Conversión de moles2.jpg. Low quality anyway. Leyo 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Beispiel-Seite001 Graebe-Ullmann.svg created by the same users. Leyo 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this image here from English Wikipedia, and then tried to find more about it. According to this site, it was created in 1950 by an artist who only died in 1980. That means it's considered copyrighted in both Norway and the U.S. (Freedom of Panorama only covers buildings in Norway.) Sigh. – Quadell (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a creative/artistic product design is not freely licensable by the photographer unless the item itself is (which seems unlikely) DMacks (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope. Trijnstel_talk 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placed under User:Pitert/galeria#Other_photos and that makes me suspect that this is not own work. Same with these files:

• Image:Franco pelizotti.jpg
• Image:Andrea noe.jpg
• Image:Kosciolsleza.jpg
• Image:Lednickaryba.jpg
• Image:Lednickaryba1.jpg

MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bad license Pessimist2006 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is certainly not own work. I am hundred percent sure it is from some non-publid domain place. See the user's other uploads for why TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logo. Non free file TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non free logo TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not made by self. See the user's other uploads for similarities TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not made by self. See the user's other uploads for similarities TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So blurry that details cannot be made out. The photo is unused and unuseful. – Quadell (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Promotional content. Savh^ñ 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US State not Federal Government work. January (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian government work, presumably Crown Copyright. January (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

file is broken McZusatz (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is obviously a retouched copy of this Flickr image, which was uploaded to Flickr in 2009 as (C)ARR. Also, the Flickr-version does not have the watermark in the lower right corner. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work; see credit at http://www.spin.com/articles/5-cant-miss-pickup-lines-dirt-nasty/
Converted by myself to DR, after protest by uploader. However, due to the clear credit "Photo by The Cobrasnake" in a publication from 2010, the status needs to be checked. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - regardless of the copyright of the photo, it's a derivative work of the clearly copyrightable bedsheets. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image, out of scope. Savh^ñ 22:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very low-resolution image with no EXIF, unlikely to be own work. January (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image, made ​​by me, is graphically incorrect, we have a correct version, so this is no longer needed. Alexander VIII (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image, made ​​by me, is graphically incorrect, we have a corrected version comes from this, so this is no longer needed. Alexander VIII (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo, made ​​by me, does not have a good graphics as blurred, we always substitute other photos of Vicenza Calcio excellent. Alexander VIII (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

google image search is not a source. please indicate source image. - Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no licence Szilas (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was made in 1995. There is neither valid licence, nor source stated. The image is deleted from the huwiki. Szilas (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The license is stated as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. This was the license of the photo on the hu wiki, which could have been verified when it was still there. It is too late to discuss it now. Hgrosser (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal images, out of scope.

• File:The crew 2013-06-21 00-15.jpg
• File:Me and my sister and cousin and friend 2013-06-21 00-14.jpg
• File:Me and my cousin 2013-06-21 00-13.jpg
• File:Me and my cousin!(; 2013-06-21 00-13.jpg
• File:Me and my little sister 2013-06-21 00-12.jpg
• File:Me and mackenna 2013-06-21 00-12.jpg
• File:Me and my cousin 2013-06-21 00-11.jpg
• File:Me and my little cousin 2013-06-21 00-11.jpg
• File:Me and my little sister 2013-06-21 00-07.jpg
• File:This me 2013-06-21 00-06.jpg
• File:The wedding with my cousin and brother and sister 2013-06-21 00-06.jpg
• File:Me and my Taco Bell swagging buddy 2013-06-21 00-04.jpg
• File:Me and my friends 2013-06-21 00-00.jpg

Savh^ñ 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not educationally useful: no use for more than one year.

• File:The Keystone Cups Live PST Theater 2012.JPG

Nightingale (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not educationally useful: no use for more than one year.

• File:Supports for what?.JPG
• File:Supports.JPG

Nightingale (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not educationally useful: no use for more than one year.

• File:Genç taha.jpg
• File:Genc taha.jpg
• File:Taha genc.jpg
• File:Taha genç.jpg
• File:Taha Genç.jpg

Nightingale (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not comply with project scope. It is from memegenerator, therefore not a creation from the uploader. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 21 June, 2013; 01:51 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo, only used in a promotional article already in process of deletion —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 21 June, 2013; 01:55 01:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Appears to be user-generated artwork of no educational value MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following files are in question:

• File:Messi - 2012 European Match Day Against Hunger.jpg
• File:Soldado - 2012 European Match Day Against Hunger.jpg
• File:Martin Schulz & Juergen Klopp & Bruno Labbadia & Michael Weiner.jpg
• File:Girona CF - 2012 European Match Day Against Hunger.jpg
• File:Elx CF - 2012 European Match Day Against Hunger.jpg

"Editorial use only" in image description and/or EXIF data means no commercial use, not free enough for Wikipedia. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment To aply the changes here discussed would mean anything to this files?--Coentor (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: At best unclear license status, due to the use of other's images without evidence of permission for free license release this Flickr user had to be placed on the untrusted user list. Denniss (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged [as Speedy Delete] by MyCanon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Sources here and here from facebook here. New rationale from Keraunoscopia: I researched this image a little bit before proceeding with my derivative, and contacted @freaktheclown on Twitter (who also has a picture of him standing next to Avril Lavigne on his Twitter page). The image is not being used in the standard copyrighted fashion that it has appeared in major publications, articles, or interviews, but rather only on social networking sites—see links provided by MyCanon. So I believe this image was uploaded to Commons in good faith, although I did (and still do) want a statement on the talk page confirming the link between User:Freaktheclown and the @freaktheclown Twitter account. However, I do understand that I may not get a response on Twitter from @freaktheclown at all, in which case this file is open for debate. But I do not believe it to be an open/shut case of copyright violation. Naturally, I will concede to whatever the community decides. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If in the event I don't hear from @freaktheclown, I will try to contact him via Bandaids or a Facebook account as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I have contacted freaktheclown through twitter, and he contacted me on my talk page at en wiki. I will forward our correspondence to OTRS. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 17:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Update: left a message at User_talk:Freaktheclown#Verifying_Avril_Lavigne_image and at his twitter account for a "take two" of trying to get this image verified. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Update 2: File_talk:Avril_Lavigne_-_May_2013.jpg#Copyright_Verification. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OTRS verified image. :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OTRS. INeverCry 01:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• File:Marvin Richard.jpg
• File:Richard olivier 2013.jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

• File:Neo (3).jpg
• File:Neo (1).jpg
• File:Neo (2).jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly does not show the correct subject, and hence is not realistically useful for educational purposes. Image2012 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license (no license). This could perhaps be PD-ineligible as this is mostely text and a few simple shapes. MGA73 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better version already exists here. Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF (except for 2 images) - own work claim doubtful

• File:Jacob hemphill dibujo.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 13.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 12.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 11.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 10.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill smoke.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 9.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 7.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 8.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 5.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 4.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 6.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 2.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 3.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill 1.jpg
• File:Soja large.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill - video not done yet.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill - entrevista rolling stone.jpg
• File:Retrato jacob hemphill.jpg
• File:SOJA.jpg
• File:Jacob hemphill.jpg

INeverCry 23:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvios Steinsplitter (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work! The picture is at: http://www.srikanta-sastri.org/#/hnarayan-murthy/4577406554 Darkesthoursoflife (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The photograph is my own. I have posted it on the said website i.e. www.srikanta-sastri.org as well. I own full copyrights of the said photograph (s) and the content on the website as well. Putting all of them on an encyclopedia gives it a wider audience and deserving one too. In this regard I request that the deleted page be restored as well. Thanks Dr Bhagirath Bugs2beatles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles[reply]

Hi, The Photograph and photographs in the wikipage H. Narayan Murthy are sourced from www.srikanta-sastri.org. However, www.srikanta-sastri.org clearly specifies at the bottom of each page that it's contents are free for use under creative commons license. Further What is said by the user (Bugs2beatles) above is verifiable. I feel the photograph ought not to be deleted. -Wikipedia User

Hi Darkesthoursoflife, I agree with the previous user. The website (www.srikanta-sastri.org) where the photo(s) appear clearly sets free the material for use under creative commons license. The photo will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. It should not be deleted. Please remove the deletion nomination. --Rkkrupa (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Overly speculative (and probably out-of-scope) captioning of an existing Commons image.... yes, it "might" be useful by someone, but it probably won't, and we could accept countless trivial variants of images under that criteria. Didym (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Image in scope (in Category:Lolcats, Category:Hiding cats, Category:Cats in containers) and image is usefull as the deletion requester admits by saying that it ""might" be useful by someone". Tm (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't "admit" anything; the "might" was a paraphrased reference to the the original uploader's assertion that it could be used as a "Potential fundraiser message" (my emphasis). I could create endless captioned variants of the same original image (remember that this is a derivative work, not the original copy) with the same vague "potential" use. What purpose is this particular one supposed to serve- "Hungry server kittens need your help"? It's some vague, half-thought-out slogan/caption that would probably need redone (using the original source image) to be useful for any specific purpose. So why do we need this pointless derivative in addition to the original? It's not even a particularly good example of a lolcat. Ubcule (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Well it is in use in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-16/Fundraiser in the English Wikipedia and Fundraising 2009/Alternative banners in Meta, so file as a scope (besides the ones pointed above) as it is in use. Tm (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this information wasn't shown at the time/place I viewed it, or it was an oversight (i.e. mistake) on my part, but you're right- it's clearly in use, and on that basis should be kept. I'd like to withdraw my original nomination. Ubcule (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 23:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the author of this crucifix and the sculpture died before 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. The sculpture seems to be comparable to this one from 1961. Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support wow, very nice pic. Unfortunately it is not very sharp. We pray someone deletes Eleassar. Žiga (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Cultural heritage cannot be copyrighted in Slovenia. --Miha (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean 'traditional works of art', because all modern sculptures, architecture etc. could be considered 'cultural heritage'. It's a lovely photograph and I'd as much like to keep this image as you do, however not for the price of sacrificing our principles and hosting non-free material. Therefore, if wooden sculptures of Jesus Christ on the cross really do classify as traditional art in Slovenia or the crucifix was erected before 1945, you should provide a citation that explicitly proves this. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]