Commons:Deletion requests/File:RahulModi.jpg
An unwanted image created using copyright violations. Please delete this photo. -Thanks! 116.74.12.105 05:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept - BS Denniss (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This photo is a copyright violation of Wikimedia and Wiki rules and regulations. The author has not provided any written permission or any authority on copyright holding on this photo. The author also seems to have no previous record of high level or other pictures in Wikimedia or other media outlets in India or abroad. I doubt that a comman man has been approved to have a close picture from such a close range. This picture is to be deleted if the author cannot give a written proof. Thanks, Varghese Jacob 122.176.4.90 03:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as above, permission even confirmed via OTRS. --Didym (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This photo is a copyright violation of Wikimedia and Wiki rules and regulations. The author also seems to have no previous record of high level or other pictures in Wikimedia or other media outlets in India or abroad. The authors name "Sir Nicholas de Missy" is fake, bogus and a made up. There is no website for such a famous person on the internet named "Sir Nicholas".? There is is no website or picture with a fake Sir Nocholas on the web. I believe the written proof that may been passed for this photo is fake. This picture is to be deleted if the author cannot give a written proof. Thanks, Varghese Jacob 182.69.181.45 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Speedy keep per previous DR resolved as Kept. OTRS team, don't forget to add {{Permission OTRS}} if the file actually has permission. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- DELETE as per copyright violation of Wikimedia and Wiki rules and regulations. The author seems to have no previous record of high level or other pictures in Wikimedia or other media outlets in India or abroad. I doubt that a conman man has been approved to have a close picture from such a close range. This picture is to be deleted if the author cannot give a written proof. ORTS seems to be faked under false name and false email address of the sender. The uploader who calls himself as "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Naveenpf" has no verification in the internet of belonging to a royal family or royalty in general. So I do not trust himself being called "Sir" and the name sees to be fake and purely made up for furthering of his/her agenda. Thanks, Varghese Jacob
Kept: Repeatedly placing DRs without new information is not permitted. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Certainly the original uploader of one of these images has a pseudonym -- that proves nothing -- only a minority of us use our actual name. Also, this image is a collage of two Commons images, both of which seem to be OK, so I fail to see why you keep attacking this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this comparison pictures? These are two different individuals. They are not gay, not a married couple. Why are two pictures pinned together? Who are the copyright owners of these two different pictures and then combined together to form one single image. The owner of the picture is not the copyright owner of the two images or even one image being made. There is a political vendetta and image falsification. This is against Wikipedia and WIkimedia rules and regulations. Please delete this image if copyright information has not been provided. Thanks. 122.171.16.48 17:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright situation has been clarified multiple times (see above). The image was probably created for the main page of some wikipedia project because the two persons simultaneously where in the news. It may not have been always possible to show two images next to each other otherwise. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep derivative work of two images hosted in Commons, already cited on the source section. Both images had the right copyright information (even a VRT ticket). There is no ground to delete based on copyright violations. Günther Frager (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep legit file and copyright info. Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
