< October 11	October 13 >

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. Proving the identity of a notable individual (or relative of such) usually requires OTRS verification. That doesn't appear to have been done here. There is no consensus to accept this editor's unsupported claims of identity, so we must default to the precautionary approach. As an aside, it seems quite dubious that the subject's son was allowed into his father's meeting with the President of the UAE and allowed to photograph it. That itself is inplausible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic photo, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 03:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly unlikely it's self-work, is their another copy of it under public domain? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work is by the subjects now deceased son, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adi_Bitar&oldid=152781720 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based off diff, the file is at best, missing evidence of permission, which still qualifies it for deletion. The uploader will have to email the documents/details to OTRS if this is to be kept -FASTILY 03:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is deceased, as indicated on his userpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A shame. May peace be on him. However, that does not change the fact that we still require evidence of permission from the copyright holder to host the file -FASTILY 00:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the copyright holder was the uploader. The image was not taken from the internet as a reverse image search via Google doesn't find it used anywhere else. Furthermore the image was scanned on the same day it was uploaded meaning the uploader had access to the original/physical copy. Furthermore in the Emirati culture it's not uncommon for adult sons to be with their fathers in the work day. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep together with User:Mnbitar's other family photos at Special:ListFiles/Mnbitar. As the link posted above attests, this deceased editor's wish was that articles referencing his father would be fulsome. The nominator calls the self work claim dubious, but now we have established that the uploader was the subject's son, it is reasonable to assume that the copyright was held by the uploader. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A watermarked version is available in a higher resolution here. This leads me entirely doubt the uploader's claim. — ξ ^xplicit 04:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notice on the website suggests that they do not actually have the copyright for the image. http://uaehistory.com/en/%d8%aa%d9%86%d9%88%d9%8a%d9%87-%d8%ad%d9%82%d9%88%d9%82-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%84%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%a9/. The watermark could have easily been placed on by the person who gave the image without considering that it may falsely imply ownership. Furthermore the image is of a higher resolution, but it is of a low quality heavily implying that it was just stretched in size and does not come from a master copy or higher quality source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update In images such as this http://uaehistory.com/en/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%8a%d8%ae-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b4%d8%af-%d8%a8%d9%86-%d8%b3%d8%b9%d9%8a%d8%af-%d8%a2%d9%84-%d9%85%d9%83%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%85-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d9%88%d9%81%d8%af-%d8%a5%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%a9/?tag=136 the website has blatantly copied image, and has no evidence possessing the right to use the image. Furthermore the image File:Adi with the three rulers of Dubai.jpg is also "watermarked" at http://uaehistory.com/en/%d8%b9%d8%af%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d9%8a%d8%b7%d8%a7%d8%b1-%d9%85%d8%ac%d8%aa%d9%85%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%8b-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%8a%d8%ae-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b4%d8%af-%d8%a2%d9%84-%d9%85%d9%83%d8%aa%d9%88/?tag=136 . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply not buying the uploader's claims. Their talk page shows a history of copyright problems, their deleted contributions a series of inappropriate derivative works (admins can see, for example, File:Nasr-eleyan-1.jpg, a painting by Nasr Abdel Aziz Eleyan claimed as own work) and the uploads which haven't been deleted yet (like File:Nasib-bitar-1.jpg and File:Article-nasib-al-bitar.jpg) scream 'not my own work'. Then there's also this uncropped version. — ξ ^xplicit 00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm buying the uploaders claims. I agree that their talkpage on this wiki does appear show problems, specifically with regards to inappropriate derivative works. However the other issues appear to be more precautionary, rather than blatant copyright violations. I am not an admin so I can't see the painting, but I believe that the error is similar to what they did on [1] and is a honest mistake. Can I ask why the yet to be deleted works scream 'not my own work'? I am curious about this uncropped version, could you please tell me where you found that, as I have never seen it online. A possible reason could be that the cropped version was not scanned at a 1:1 ratio, and not that it was copyright violation. Furthermore I think it is worth reading the uploader discussing the UAE public domain on Commons. A final point that needs to be considered is that this uploader was not a professional producer, but the son of the author of the UAE constitution, as well as grandson of another lawyer who was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. This point suggests to me that they are highly likely to understand what is a copyright violation and any misunderstanding is due to them not possessing adequate English skills to function as a Wikipedian. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a clear link of authorship. I see the uploader's spotty copyright history, which is made especially stark through Explicit's examples. And I think it's more likely than not that uaehistory.com is mirroring and watermarking WP/Commons images. I don't see an overabundance of proof of authorship to surpass my doubts. czar 07:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Where is the spotty copyright history? I think the examples given by Explicit are not deliberate copyright violations but mere confusion as to filling in some boxes. I think you are probably correct about uaehistory.com, however I have seen some pictures on that website that I have not seen online. Even in the possibility that the uploader is not the author they mentioned in the the deletion request about the Malak Sukkar file on Commons that IP laws did not exist in the UAE at that time and that they are not retroactive. Keeping in mind that the uploaders dad wrote the UAE constitution, as well as the uploaders career as a local media producer that he would know a thing or two about the UAE copyright laws. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have used multiple accounts—I don't know how/why and haven't really investigated, but they link to each other: User:Mnbitar (enwp file creations), User:Producer (Commons file creations), User:Alpha-beta (per ar:ويكيبيديا:ويكيبيديون رحلوا). I'm not able to pull an archived copy of what might be his website: nasibbitar.net (mentioned at least one upload). Images like File:Article-nasib-al-bitar.jpg follow a similar (the user's usual) format: a description of the item with no specific note about authorship. Though in his defense, none of these digitized film shots appear to have been discussed in the past. These film works were uploaded prior to the user's aforementioned Tux/map uploads as user:producer. I don't have confidence that the user fully understood copyright rules in their uploads from this period, based on File:Article-nasib-al-bitar.jpg (a scan of a periodical page re-licensed as "self"), and the three successive Nasr Abdel Aziz Eleyan paintings (File:Nasr-eleyan-1.jpg). Copyright gets complicated, but I would never assume that a person's lineage or even background as a lawyer somehow trumps the basic proof of authorship that we would require of any editor. And then why upload the websized version under discussion here rather than a fuller image? (@Explicit, where did you find this?) I'd recommend removing all files that lack certainty of the uploader's authorship. To be clear, this is less to do with trust than with precaution. czar 18:26, 8 January 2017 (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.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, inferior format for graph (pdf), no encyclopedic use FASTILY 03:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason for this to kept. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2016 (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.

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. XXN, 10:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image of non-notable person. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2016 (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.

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: update license czar 06:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyrighted by creator, which is an international organization, not the uploader. Most of this information is geographical in nature and could be recreated freely. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is free, but placed under the wrong licence. It is under the CC BY 3.0 IGO not the CC BY 4.0) as per https://www.adb.org/publications/scaling-new-heights-vizag-chennai-industrial-corridor . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2016 (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.

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK. Kelly ^hi! 14:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kelly: The image doesn't appear to be panoramic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Freedom of panorama. Kelly ^hi! 14:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above, but I think this is better evidence UK FoP Wikimedia Commons Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2016 (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.

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, probably nonfree. Kelly ^hi! 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyrighted by LucasFilm or an associated company most likely. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2016 (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.

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused user image. Kelly ^hi! 14:19, 12 October 2016 (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.

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, per below - questionable authorship. -FASTILY 08:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture states "This is a picture of Carissa and it belongs in the article "carissa's wierd"". I presume that it means carissa's wierd which has an encyclopaedic article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Authorship still be questionable. --XXN, 18:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm uncomfortable leaving the photo in the article without any sort of verifiability. The pic is potentially useful/educational, but I'd let it sit until there is some sourced reason for including the photo in the article. As far as the article is concerned, the band's namesake is trivia. The uploader has vouched for the subject's relationship (also see uploader's talk page), but makes no claim of authorship of the photo—could have been taken by someone else. czar 04:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth a reverse image search does not bring up the image anywhere except from a mirror. reverse image search Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2017 (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.

October 12

File:Adi-bitar-9.jpg

File:Not biconnected 4.pdf

File:--M-Zahid Zadran--.jpeg

File:East Coast Economic Corridor and its connectivity to South, East, and East Asia.jpg

File:Lochlomondpath08.JPG

File:Cmndrappo.jpg

File:CMpageheader.svg

File:Cnich2007.jpg