Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

File:SMMarikina2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:St. Andrew Makati.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:The Mega Atrium.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SM City North EDSA.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:New SM Main Mall.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jake327.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given GretchBacayan's apparent copyright violations and suspicious files with either no metadata or various camera brands on metadata (e.g. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 29#File:SMMakatiNew.jpg and the first 4 files at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 31), I am doubting that this is indeed hers or a photo stolen or a photo handed over. Maybe the physical ownership of the photo is transferred, but not the copyright, which remains with the photographer, whether he/she is a family member, a friend, a relative, a co-worker, or an associate. Copyright remains with the photographer until a written contract is undertaken transferring the copyright to GretchBacayan. By attempting to move this to Commons (once FoP becomes existing in the Philippines, should the IPOPHL's review on copyright law becomes fruitful), I might get an unpleasant warning there given the suspicious enwiki uploads of this user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:DSC 9225-snowy-rowy.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. WP:G7. Izno (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can kill this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.