Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.GIF){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No valid source given. I doubt that this image is own work by the uploader 80.187.106.77 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio and so speedy - thanks Herby talk thyme 13:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
.GIF&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.GIF&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dieses von Nacho99 eingefügte Wappen, welches er als "eigene Arbeit" ausgibt, ist ohne Genehmigung von meiner privaten Internetpräsenz http://www.jahnsfelder-chronik.de kopiert worden. Ich habe das Wappen einst nach einer s/w-Vorlage koloriert. Ein Beweis hierfür ist der in der Krone des Wappens enthaltene (c)-Hinweis auf die Jahnsfelder - Chronik. Da anders als angegeben keine Genehmigung vorliegt, ist das Bild zu löschen! Nachträglich erteile ich keine Genehmigung. 178.24.193.74@10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
.GIF&diff=39246260&oldid=39244434){kind=link}
Deleted by Dschwen: Copyright violation
questionable source, low res, no metadata Denniss (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also living underage person in private place. In my view a hospital room is not a public place; an underage person should be able to expect to have privacy protected in a hospital room, unless legal guardians agree to otherwise (which is highly unlikely in this case as the Dutch government has asked media on behalf of relatives to keep distance). So deletion per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and of course all reasons mentioned above by Denniss. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete a picture of a child in a hospital bed, without explicit parental permission, isn't something that should be here. It's invasive and private.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)- Delete Immediately Violation of Dutch right of portrait --Stunteltje (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Violation of Dutch right of portrait
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy for this to be speedied Matthewedwards (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by PeterSymonds. Blurpeace 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy for this to be speedied. Matthewedwards (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by PeterSymonds. Blurpeace 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Tries to solve a non-existent problem, we rarely have image vandalism on Commons. --Multichill (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Vandalism mean potential abuse of such images by gathering them in a gallery. Perhaps changing the wording? Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- First something becomes an issue than we can decide to make a template. This is a non issue. Multichill (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- You could change the wording, but vandalism on Commons will never mean gathering your own uploads in a gallery. Garion96 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Don't copy templates from other wikis, and this extension is redundant anyway to the abuse filter. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no point in this template on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think that this link should be "blue", so it should stay with a wikicode similar to the {{Fair use}} template.--Trixt (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)- Delete - Serves no purpose on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. –Tryphon☂ 08:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, solution for a non-existing problem; and then replace with something like "fair use" (in a copyright sense nvdr.) Kameraad Pjotr 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, agreed the problem does not exist on Commons. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Language unsuited to commons, applies implied restrictions to other Wikipedias --Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Almost certain copyvio, likely from WENN or Retna Tabercil (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete In the site, indicated as source, the only information about the pictures showed it's just about who posted it. No mention of authorship. Moreover, the site in itself it's an enormous copyviol, starting from the 90% of users' thurnbails. And, least but not last, it was unfair, by the uploader, to give as source a dead end link making it unverifiable. In my opinion it's like to a no-source at all.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:MIIII.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Unused personal images Justass (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted definetely oout of scope abf «Cabale!» 16:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom abf «Cabale!» 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any of the projects. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope--Fanghong (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, used for self promotion, article where it was used deleted Mikaela_Kasbo-Puolakka --Justass (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination as this upload is the very only edit of the uploader at Commons so far and at the only other project this account has been active is now blocked (after 7 edits because of vandalism). Hence it is not likely that this image will be used at a user page. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per AFBorchert abf «Cabale!» 16:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, undescribed Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted I disagree on the description-part. There was even a bi-lingual description. :D One was english and said "pic" and the french said "image". :D Thats really detailed. No, seriously, Deleteed per nom abf «Cabale!» 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The person whom there breasts belong to asks them to be taken down (if you don't believe me, I can forward the email for you to peruse): "Hi, can you please take this down." The photographer took there pics at a party and uploaded without the breast owner consent. -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- And this person contacted you out of the blue? Sure, stop fishing and trying to find reasons to get images deleted. Multichill (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- not fishing. I looked at the description and doubt whether this is another flickr dump. Looking at the comments at the flickr page, I saw that a user was shocked to see her image there. So I went ahead and pmed the lady telling her that her boobs are on commons and she replied with that message. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Frankly is is a terrible image. --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I believe the correct procedure would be to either forward the email, or better yet ask the creator to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the same email account used on his/her Flickr profile (if possible, or some other proof of identity). In the meantime, this DR should be considered OTRS PENDING, and voting suspended until proof of the request for deletion is provided to OTRS. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - However, I can see that this is a low-quality bust shot with no realistically educational purpose (out of scope) and should be deleted for this reason, and also for the reason that consent of model is in question (if verified). - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- otrs sent. Forwarded email and response. Context context clues can be taken from the flickr page for the image. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Substandard image quality. --High Contrast (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Nice boobs, terrible picture. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality --JN466 12:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Giorgiomonteforti -- Neozoon (talk)
Deleted she owns her breasts, and furthermore the image is out of scope abf «Cabale!» 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no context, uncategorized since 2008, low resolution --Santosga (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; personal image no evident project scope usefulness. Infrogmation (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If not copyviol. It reminds me Family Guy.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no context, uncategorized since 2008, low resolution --Santosga (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; personal image no evident project scope usefulness. Infrogmation (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no context, uncategorized since 2008, low resolution --Santosga (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a copyrighted logo --AllyUnion (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if it's no copyvio, it out of scope--DieBuche (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per DieBuche abf «Cabale!» 16:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Antep erased2.jpg. It's been enlarged to one of the largest pictures on Commons, but that doesn't add image quality to the original, which is a decently large picture as it is. Prosfilaes (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Jep, it is nonsense. Speedying this would be ok IMO. --Dschwen (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is the goal of such DR? Avoiding the end user to think that he is getting an high resolution image that was in fact just supersampled? I'd agree here, now, deleting will not free the image disk :/ . Esby (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Disk space is irrelevant, however we should make it clear that this type of content is useless and unwanted. --Dschwen (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Supersampling here does not make sense. Esby (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Dschwen --Justass (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Source file is File:Antep 1250575.jpg, it will never get better than that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Enlarging was does with SmillaEnlarger that allows high quality prints after enlarging. But if you don't want it delete anyway... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- But it would be incredibly inefficient for us to hold copies of all our files automatically. Better to suggest tools that can be used to do so for people who want printable copies, or even make automatic enlarging and serving of such files from the server on demand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above the enlargement is not done with Linear, Cubic or Lanczos interpolations. I still wonder who are you? And who is the user? And if you want to teach me a lesson, or free disc space you can delete all my files. That would make a lot of space... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The User is the person who wants to use Commons, and who doesn't want to be constantly running across duplicates of files that are unreasonably large and don't have any more data than smaller files. Yes, I can read that you used SmillaEnlarger, as can anyone who wants a enlarged version of a Commons picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above the enlargement is not done with Linear, Cubic or Lanczos interpolations. I still wonder who are you? And who is the user? And if you want to teach me a lesson, or free disc space you can delete all my files. That would make a lot of space... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- But it would be incredibly inefficient for us to hold copies of all our files automatically. Better to suggest tools that can be used to do so for people who want printable copies, or even make automatic enlarging and serving of such files from the server on demand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Btw. who is we and who is user? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be taking this personal. It can simply not be the scope of commons to provide upsampled copies of all our files for a handfull of users who want to make large prints. --Dschwen (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Dschwen --Elekhh (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per Discussion (speedy per dschwen) abf «Cabale!» 16:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If he is a personality, an artist, a public officer, whoever, he could certainly give us far better pictures of himself than that.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the wikipedia article about him was deleted. If he fails the notability guidelines there, i think he does here too. --Jahobr (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The user who uploaded it is now blocked [1] so it is unlikely to be used in the future. --Andrewrutherford (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --Sandahl (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted yes, it's kinda unlikely... :D abf «Cabale!» 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Material taken from Armenica.org must not be altered or modified without permission from Armenica.org. --Leyo 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --DieBuche (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted even if it's sad abf «Cabale!» 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of SCOPE. Captain-tucker (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--E8 (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted fuuuuu abf «Cabale!» 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused small image of the greek letter >σ<; if a image is needed: File:Times New Roman Greek small letter sigma.svg; Jahobr (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted out of scope abf «Cabale!» 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused plain text, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Blurred, and apparently unusable picture. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jahobr (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep - No good reason for deletion given. Gridge (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC).
- See COM:NUDE.--Oneiros (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Anyway. Gridge (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC).
- Keep rare --Starscream (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Unusable. No evident purpose. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment He is a sculptor. He has a very gaga internet site [2] and an edit on enWiki [3] but, apparently, written by himself. Not yet deleted, anyway. The good is that he shared with Commons some of his works. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I want to withdraw my nomination. He seems to be notably. --Jahobr (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
DR withdrawn by nom. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It is totally biased, based on a clearly POV 19-th century pro-Greek map made by George Soteriadis Professor of History at the University of Athens, a 19-th century Greek historian.... I can make some thousands of images like this to show the Albanianess of Egypt... --Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this merits a delete, for several reasons. We already have far more biased and outright ridiculous ethnographic maps, and this one appears (to me at least) to be reasonably accurate in depicting the areas where minorities have traditionally (this is the important part) lived in Albania. The map is not a rip-off of Soteriadis, there are several listed sources. If it is inaccurate, then the best thing is to provide a source that explains how and where it is inaccurate, and then correct it. Deletion only comes across as a denial (i.e. "there are no minorities in Albania"). Constantine ✍ 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose delete, as a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of a rabid Albanian nationalist. This is nothing more than yet another tiresome attempt to deny the existence of ethnic minorities in Albania. The map is based on numerous reliable sources, and is very accurate. Athens2004 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The description label and the discussion page are made up to write even an essay on how it is right or how it is wrong the map showed. Deletion, in this case and in my personal opinion, it's just censorship.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, as per GiorgiomontefortiMegistias (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
""Delete"" As per Balkanian's word arguments.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete propaganda map based on the map created by a Greek nationalist during WWI. Third source is totally irrelevant and doesn't even mention locations.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: As per Cplakidas, deletion is an extreme approach. The traditional precense of ethnologiustic minorities (especially the Greek) is also cited in several books and journals: [[4]] p. 1617, and [[5]] (Monte Diplomatique). It's really sad to see blocked and spa-revert warriors from english wikipedia to be active here too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has all sorts of propaganda and other material that many of us disagree with. This map could easily be used to illustrate the use of maps in propaganda. We even have a tag for exactly this purpose, {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}, which should be added to it by someone more knowledgeable than me. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, Jameslwoodward, it has already been discussed in En:Wiki it is not propaganda.Megistias (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Tagged. Also entered a comment on the talk page. We should behave with maps and images as with articles. Please bring it to the talk page BW.Sulmues (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Image is in use, in scope and educational. The deletion reason by the nominator really isn't a reason to delete the image. Bidgee (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
A much more accurate map is already in wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AlbaniaTraditionalCommunitiesByLanguageAndReligion.png therefore "Albania_minorities.png" is unnecessary. AceDouble (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: In use on 24 projects, thus not eligible for deletion. --Achim (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: I doubt if the so-called alternative map above is more accurate, in fact its undergoing large-scale correction.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There you go: http://www.instat.gov.al/media/3214/1113.xls greeks make up 0.87% of the population. AceDouble (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can't vote on a deletion request that you've nominated! (note, AceDouble removed the vote delete but also my comment) Bidgee (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Been over this before and nothing has changed with the argument for the deletion. Everyone's view points will be different, Commons doesn't take sides and this file is also in-use and even if it wasn't, it would still exist in a category and be in-scope. Bidgee (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Bidgee you've got a problem with that? This map doesn't even comply with the present time so it belongs to the past, that's one more reason to be deleted. AceDouble (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Talks about a book but I can't find the book anywhere. --AllyUnion (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) --AllyUnion (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable --DieBuche (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Also, if it is a book cover, it is likely a copyvio. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 12:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Image violates trademark protection of Red Cross granted by Congress and Geneva Conventions. See 36 U.S.C. § 300106 Jc3s5h (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) revised 06?28 22 May 2010 UTC.
- (a) Emblem and Badge. - In carrying out its purposes under this chapter, the corporation may have and use, as an emblem and badge, a Greek red cross on a white ground, as described in the treaties of Geneva, August 22, 1864, July 27, 1929, and August 12, 1949, and adopted by the nations acceding to those treaties.
- (b) Delivery of Brassard. - In accordance with those treaties, the delivery of the brassard allowed for individuals neutralized in time of war shall be left to military authority.
We are not concerned here with trademark, and, strictly speaking, this does not infringe any Red Cross trademark as it is in a different line of business (an encyclopedia is not a humanitarian organization) -- there are around twenty US companies with "Red Cross" as a registered trademark unrelated to the International Red Cross. (Go here and search on "Red Cross"). If a Red Cross (both name and symbol) can be used in US commerce for shoes and toothache drops, among many other things, then why not here? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are two reasons that distinguish existing commercial usage in the US of a red cross from this case. First, the commercial uses were established before 1905, when the mark was granted to the Red Cross. Wikimedia is newer. Second, the file in question combines the Red Cross mark with a symbol associated with Wikipedia editors, the barnstar, which implies that the Red Cross endorses Wikipedia editors, or vice versa.
- See also USC title 18 section 706, which forbids the unauthorized use of the Red Cross except for uses that already existed when the law was passed (that is, 1905). The 1905 date comes from a Red Cross document on a non-public website. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Aha. I knew it made me uneasy. I went back over the list of active trademarks using the Red Cross and find that they all (including, most notably, Johnson & Johnson) have first use dates in the nineteenth century, dating back as far as 1876. Thank you, Jc3s5h, for keeping us out of trouble:
- "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
Given the clarity of the law, I'm going to add a {{Speedy}} to this. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 'Delete
unused logo of something - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Too small to be useful whatever it is. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Which article? --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. It's been a year.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Photo also appears to be out of Commons' scope as it is purely a vanity shot. FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say Keep as in project scope as a nice shot of the automobile.... except that there's no license. I've added {{Nld}} and notified the uploader; unless a free license is provided this image will be deleted in regardless of in scope question. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 22:24, 22 May 2010 ABF (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:DinorahPerez.jpg" (In category Media without a license as of 14 May 2010; no license) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 23:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image Justass (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment the upload and the DR are from the same day - to quick, but hard to say what time will be appropriate. Looks like a personal image, really. Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that a little slack is good -- the subject is the uploader -- and she might want to put it on User:BorisovaGalina, but after a week it looks more like out of scope. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 22:25, 22 May 2010 ABF (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:GalinaBorisova.JPG" (In category Media without a license as of 14 May 2010; no license) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Threesome Sex Club (SL).jpg
- File:Intercourse + Fellatio (SL).jpg
- File:Sex Club (SL).jpg
- File:Threesome Sex Club (SL)-2.jpg
- File:Threesome in Sex Club (SL).png
- File:Intercourse + Fellatio (SL)-2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The {{Second Life}} template is only for content created by the person making the screen shot. But this is from a set where the Flickr member writes: "A Sex club I went to in Second Life.". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - No proof that the image includes ONLY that user's elements. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment — I think you need to also make the assertion that the images contain something copyrightable. E.g. The creator of a second life screenshot probably has the sole copyright interest in the composition of the image, but the image may quite likely contain elements copyrighted by other users. This is exactly analogous to a regular photograph. We don't delete photographs taken in a bar simply because there may be some element somewhere that the photographer does not have the right to release, but we may if there is some central element which is not freely licensed. I think the same criteria should be applied here. I'm not suggesting that there isn't something here which is copyrightable at all, I'm merely saying that you should include such an allegation in your recommendations to delete. If I were to close this I would likely disregard delete comments on the basis of copyright if no such claim were made by anyone. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The difference with a real bar is that everything in the Second life virtual world is a work. The Flickr user did not make any of it. She just walked around, and chose a point of view to take a shot of the action. Real people are not copyrighted, but these Second-life characters are. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- A virtual world consisting of nothing but an untextured sphere wouldn't contain anything copyrightable in my view. I suppose you're saying the character models are copyrightable. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But why do we have even a single second life screenshot? I would assume that almost no users make their own character models. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It started with this DR from 2007, which was kept as user's own work. For cases like that, the {{Second Life}} tag was created, because a growth of the SL-phenomenon was expected then. But the tag has since become applied for stuff that is not own work. As the template says, it is not a copyright tag. The CC-license on these images is a flickrvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- A virtual world consisting of nothing but an untextured sphere wouldn't contain anything copyrightable in my view. I suppose you're saying the character models are copyrightable. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But why do we have even a single second life screenshot? I would assume that almost no users make their own character models. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The difference with a real bar is that everything in the Second life virtual world is a work. The Flickr user did not make any of it. She just walked around, and chose a point of view to take a shot of the action. Real people are not copyrighted, but these Second-life characters are. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I wonder what the author was thinking about creating that p.o.s. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Second life and its is probably copyrighted. I would do a speedy. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Image from second life should be certainly under copyright Otourly (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Couldn't we assume good faith ? and then consider that 1) the characters are created by the Flickr user ; 2) de minimis applies to the rest of the picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Flickr user does not claim that she made this. Her licensing this as CC is a mistake. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, Delete then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK,
- The Flickr user does not claim that she made this. Her licensing this as CC is a mistake. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't we have a mass deletion request concerning ALL screenshot pictures within the Second Life category ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not for all - a few of these are self-created - but for most. I started with a clear case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If this is kept, I think it should be renamed, a blowjob is not actually happening in this picture so the description doesn't seem accurate. TY© (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and scope. --JN466 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now read JacLee's quotes from the Terms of Service and I am inclined to withdraw this DR./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)- Delete Those changes in the terms of service are very recent (blog), and they cannot affect the old images in this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a mention in the terms of service that it is not retroactive ? And in that case how will we be supposed to know if a screenshot had been made before or after these new terms ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In this case it is clear that the screenshot was made before the new terms. And Linden Labs cannot make terms of service retroactive when they take away rights from their users. This is in fact quite messy - even screenshots made today would often be of older content. See Commons:Second Life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I perfeclty understood that these cases were anterior, but your answer shows that it will be even more complicated to apply these terms of service. Indeed, if we can determine when a screenshot was made, how could we know if the elements shown are not anterior ? This is impossible to respect the terms of service then ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- In this case it is clear that the screenshot was made before the new terms. And Linden Labs cannot make terms of service retroactive when they take away rights from their users. This is in fact quite messy - even screenshots made today would often be of older content. See Commons:Second Life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, we have to many of those bad-quality and redudndant pics...--Yikrazuul (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep better alternatives may exist, but nominator has nort named them. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please browse Category:Shaved genitalia (female).--Oneiros (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Cat. list--E8 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
French artist Andre Lambert died in 1967 (see[6] ). The work is still very much in copyright and there is no permission. Simonxag (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment work is from 1917, PD in the US, should be uploaded to en.Wikipedia prior to deletion here. --Elekhh (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment echoing Elekhh; this really needs to be transwikied before deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- The uploader is citing a book, as this google search shows. I believe a scan of an image from a book, where the book attributes the image to a public domain source is perfectly acceptable for use here. It is possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nominator cut and paste identical nomination here: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1993_Bombing_Aftermath_in_WTC_by_DSS_Agent.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250466){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DSS_Photo_of_Ramzi_Yousef_in_ISI_Custody_Immediately_Upon_Capture.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250420){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DSS_Photo_of_Odeh_on_Plane_to_United_States.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250391){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:House_Where_Ramzi_Yousef_Captured_-_Photographed_by_US_Embassy_Staff.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250324){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phillipine_Airlines_Bombing_Aftermath.png&diff=prev&oldid=39250296){kind=link}
Deleted - Has been deleted by User:AFB because of "no license since 4 May 2010;" –Krinkletalk 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Restored - It seems we missed the fact that the uploader addded {{PD-USGov}} in the mean-time. Re-opening this request. –Krinkletalk 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
According to http://www.pref.kagawa.jp/profile/kensho/, the flag is not drawn correctly. Emblem needs to be 10x9 on a 10x10 grid for starters. The SVG file at File:Flag of Kagawa Prefecture.svg has it drawn correctly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeletePresuming the file is incorrect we absolutely should delete it. The SVG is preferable in any case. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. miya (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
no Freedom Of Panorama in United States --Julo (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused, incorrect image. The corrected image is at File:Flag of Miyazaki Prefecture.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Presuming the file is incorrect we absolutely should delete it. The SVG is preferable in any case. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted incorrect unused flag --99of9 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The main focus of the image is a likely copyrighted advertisement, and there is no indication that the photographer of the image is the copyright holder of the ad. fetchcomms☛ 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteAgreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Image appears to be from http://www.somoscuervos.com.ar/vamos_ciclon-fotos_de_san_lorenzo-igfpo-545115.htm, which predates this upload. Copyright unclear. --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. --99of9 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The template {{Second Life}} does not give the right to make free screenshots of the work of others. This does not seem to be the work of Isfullofcrap, it is just a place that he visited. Also, in his profile, he excludes Linden Labs employees from his CC license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In that case, shouldn't we have a mass deletion request concerning ALL screenshot pictures within the Second Life category ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The avatar in File:Second life garden.jpg is own work, and comes with a valid free license; a DR considered the background to be de minimis. But most of these images are copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The avatar in File:Second life garden.jpg is own work, and comes with a valid free license; a DR considered the background to be de minimis. But most of these images are copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Do you guys mean that the pictures in the frames are not public domain or something like that? TY© (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The way I interpret the Flickr user, he visited an art gallery in Second Life (at "sl5b"), and took a screenshot there, focusing on a painting of a nude whose breasts had been covered over by roses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I now read JackLee's quotes from the Terms of Service,
and I am inclined to withdraw this DR./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) - Delete The new terms are very recent, and not retroactive; and even according to the new terms, one would need to be very careful with the art gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per Pieter Kuiper. Contains copyvios that are not de minimis. The new licence does not apply retroactively. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Not a very clear image of fellatio. Where's the penis going - up her nose? Delete per COM:NUDE . Stillwaterising (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addition: also delete per COM:PORN, and possible COM:COPYVIO due to painting visible in background. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per COM:PORN - clearly amateur. --E8 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not clear "view" for any educational purpose, private => out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Copyrighted picture in the background. :) --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- speedy Keep: invalid rationale: Stillwaterising mentions no pictures which could supersede this picture Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could be superseded by File:Wiki-fellatio.svg. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't a photograph. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could be superseded by File:Wiki-fellatio.svg. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Your sneaky change of the nomination makes it somewhat hard to keep assuming good faith. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize for my breach of etiquette. Please AGF Erik. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN. --JN466 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep irreplaceable; clearest picture of fellatio we have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- speedy Keep per Erik Warmelink.--SummerWithMorons (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. A pretty bad picture, but we don't have many other photos of fellatio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and SWR.... a copyvio because of the painting? Really? Since you seem to enjoy our policy pages, let me direct you to COM:DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Bad/ amator composition. Now, there are best alternatives uploaded. Joan Miro's signature. FAP (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Unused: not a reason for deletion. Bad composition: not a reason for deletion. There are other better versions uploaded: not a reason for deletion, and frankly untrue. Joan Miro's signature: most certainly not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ohhh, I see, the painting, right. COM:DM - it's not an integral part of the image, it just happens to be there, therefore not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Part of a still very limited set of pictures of fellatio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep. Not a brilliant image by any means, but we should have some. (If Miro's signature is a problem, it can be edited out.) --JN466 00:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept - it's IMHO the best of the few pictures we have on the topic - Jcb (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Non-free modern painting. Not PD-old, painter died only in 2000 [12] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Сайт http://www.derev.org.ua/ с которого взят файл защищён копирайтом Zimin.V.G. (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Файл взят с сайта www.derev.org.ua. Сайт защищён авторским правом Zimin.V.G. (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete blatant copyvio --Justass (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
unclear source, picture is not from 2010 as stated --Michiel1972 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Michiel1972. Uploader has claimed own work on all their uploads, regardless of date. Also no source given for any of them. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the age of Dior on the picture, this is from the 50s. No real justification why this is PD. 83.204.90.21 22:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- He died in 1957, so this photo would be taken plus 50 years in any case.--Symane (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No source, no author, no date... No way to derive PD. Very unlikely that the author died before 1940 (condition for PD in France, for instance). --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE.--Oneiros (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no real educational value. Photo quality is medium to low. Amada44 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The quality of this amateur image is too low for use in a publication about erotica. Not in use and no real education value. An replacement image of higher quality can be easily located or made if an use is found. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This file is not a valid SVG file. According to the source code of this graphic, it has obviously been tried to solely include a locally, client-sided stored PNG file which is probably based on Battle_of_Greece_-_1941.png. Sponk (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) --Sponk (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I really don't know what's wrong with this file. i tried to transate it but i never could see the image on my computer since i uploaded it, some others saw it without a problem. If it can't be fixed just delete ιτ, i don't know how to fix it. Alaniaris (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alaniaris! Unfortunately, this SVG file is not going to work, since it is trying to link to a raster graphic file that (according to the source code) needs to be stored at “C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\Battle_of_Greece_-_1941.png”! The image information, however, has to be stored within the SVG file in order to work with the MediaWiki Software. In Inkscape, which you were obviously using to create the SVG file, you can achieve that by selecting “Extensions → Images → Embed All Images”. Best wishes from Germany, --Sponk (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Sponk. I've tried to experiment with what you said but obviously me using inkscape it not my strong point :( Anyway, there is a .png copy of this map already in English, so it better be deleted. Thanks a lot for your help though, maybe in the future i'll master that little devil... Greetings from Athens. Alaniaris (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I made this photograph, and want to delete it now Mvdm2000 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- But why? You uploaded this image fully 3 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that I uploaded it 3 years ago, but I wasn't thinking at that time.mvdm2000
- Ok, but why do you want it deleted now? If it is because of the visible number plate of the other car, that could easily be retouched. The image is in use on other projects and a free license cannot really be revoked. --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, free licences are irrevocable. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of Flickr user, very random photostream, also TinEye possitive [13] Justass (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
In the extra large TIFF Version you can read under the map a verry small the text: "NASA Ames Reseach Center, U.S Geological Survey and Massachusetts Institute of Technology". But the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is not an Agency of the US Goverment. Uwe W. (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If done by MIT under government contract, the rights would go to the government and it would be PD. The uploader should figure that out. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment From the looks of it, that is author[contributor] attribution, isn't it? Not ownership so as Jim says, it's government property hence public domain, it must be fair to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt :) Mark MarkieMark 15:02, 27 May 2010
- Keep This is a PD image according to the NSSDC Photo Gallery from which it comes. The image use guidelines for it can be found here so the nominator appears to be confusing credit with copyright which is an honest mistake. Anynobody (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The NSSDC states that all images in the gallery are PD, that should be good enough for us. rimshottalk 19:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not educational..just posted to show something 112.201.108.55 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. I suspect that this image shows variations in the vulva. This could be used as research instead of doing broad searches over the internet. Keeping this file on Wikipedia will allow someone who is researching this subject to be inside of a safe environment. - LDS ::
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete Ich sehe keinen enzyklopädischer Grund ein schwarzen Hinterteil zu behalten oder wozu braucht man so ein Bild?? --Ra Boe (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Korrektur --Ra Boe (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No use here. --DaB. (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Was there a reason this was deleted outside of the normal deletion cycle ? Megapixie (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't seen the image (which seems to have been prematurely deleted) but if the artist is notable (as mattbuck asserts above; I don't know the artist), wouldn't the image be worth keeping as an example of that artist's work, independently of how usable it is for any other purpose? - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. (simply closing request) Kameraad Pjotr 12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable artist, so in scope. I do not know any real alternatives for that view. --178.39.34.160 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - work by notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Really nice shot! Not all photos of this theme are that great. Good example for the ones who look for it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare --Starscream (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Leyo 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This image has no pedagogical value whatsoever and should not be on Wikimedia. It has been deleted on flickr for what it is. Only the trolls governing Commons see a potential value in this image. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per my previous !votes: Klashorst is a notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are a troll and you should be banned on Commons. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, you seem to be the troll. You've renominated an image which at last DR was closed as a unanmimous keep, and are calling people who disagree with you trolls. You vandalised the image page, you did the same to this page a few weeks back, and are now nominating all the images you uploaded, which you released under an irrevocable licence, for deletion on the grounds that I love assholes. And it's true, I do love assholes, in fact I have a little pet theory that relationship compatability is proportional to the similarness of the taste of the two people's backsides. But that's beside the point. I'm sorry that this one image has soured your view of Commons, but I should point out that Commons, like other Wikimedia projects, may contain material that you consider to be offensive. What's more, there's a simple solution to it: don't look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are a troll and you should be banned on Commons. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NOTCENSORED. No reason for deletion given. --Saibo (Δ) 19:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe no pedagogical but artistic. --Starscream (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of whose work it is. Folks, not everything on here is going to be to your taste. That is your problem, not Commons'. I continue to be in favor of a way of reducing or eliminating the chance that someone encounters images of human genitalia when they are not looking for them, but I'm entirely opposed to eliminating such images from the Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Our photographic nudity tends to be white; this is an important exception.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete. Please do not make personal attacks directed at fellow editors. Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Upsampled blocky, original research, misleading -> no educational value. Doesn't look like a Jackson Pollock image at all. Plain out of scope. Dschwen (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, Nonsense file--Havang(nl) (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
-2010-05-15T17:32:00.000Z-File:Jackson_Pollock-esque.png){kind=link}
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is validly freely licensed I see no reason why this should go. --Herby talk thyme 16:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." The educational use is not obvious to me . --Jahobr (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and there is a whole lot more like this to toss out. --Dschwen (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is validly freely licensed I see no reason why this should go. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." The educational use is not obvious to me . --Jahobr (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete self created art, not realistically useful for educational purposes. --Dschwen (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete self created art (and I am still believing that my request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Creative independence.jpg should have resulted into a deletion). Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:山谷圭司 (Yamaya Keiji,1955-)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- File:Ningenzou seinen.jpg
- File:Shiizou.jpg
- File:Danshizarazou.jpg
- File:Fujinzou chakui.jpg
- File:Fujinzou raritsu.jpg
- File:婦人像・昼.jpg
- File:人間像・今の存在の像.jpg
- File:婦人像・昼（北海道療育園彫刻の森）.jpg
- File:人間像・感情.jpg
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:加藤顕清 (Kato Kensei,1894-1966)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- File:風の中の母子像（北海道療育園彫刻の森）.jpg
- File:子を守る母たち（北海道療育園彫刻の森）.jpg
- File:浮遊.jpg
- File:三人（大雪アリーナ前）.jpg
- File:隼の碑(８条斜線通).jpg
- File:隼の碑(新成橋).jpg
- File:風の中の母子像.jpg
- File:隼の碑(花咲大橋).jpg
- File:鶴の舞.jpg
- File:家族(忠別橋).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:山内壮夫 (Yamauchi Takeo,1907 - 1975)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Bad categorization. In my opinion, art, it's never out of scope. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.". The educational use is not obvious to me. --Jahobr (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Just a blurred version of a paining uploaded at ridiculously large resolution. --Dschwen (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
art by user, out of scope --DieBuche (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is validly freely licensed I see no reason why this should go. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I have nothing against collecting art. But the we would have to change the scope (3.4.4): "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: … Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.". The educational use is not obvious to me. --Jahobr (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jahobr. Amada44 talk to me 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. --Dschwen (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- The uploader is citing a book, as this google search shows. I believe a scan of an image from a book, where the book attributes the image to a public domain source is perfectly acceptable for use here. It is possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nominator cut and paste identical nominations for half a dozen other images. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Question: what was a "US Embassy staff" doing in New York? Rama (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- That was an error in my reusing the upload page from the photo of the house, uploaded twenty seconds prior. As the image title says, this image was taken by a DSS agent according to the caption in the book. Sherurcij (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, sourced, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The same picture exists in better quality (file:Alevisme.png) and without the unnecessary red background. This picture isn't used at all. --Qizilbash (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This one looks better. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a photograph of three-dimensional bronze relief constructed in 1986. According to his website, the sculptor was George Nelson ([19]), who was commissioned by the city of San Antonio. Per [20], there is a copyright notice on the sculpture. From my understanding of the copyright laws, since the sculpture is under copyright, we cannot declare a photograph of it as public domain. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine if that's the policy. Is there an appropriate license to use for such things? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The summary above is correct, as the sculpture is still in copyright and the photo is, therefore, a derivative work. Loadmaster, you could, of course, ask the artist for permission to have it on Commons. Some artists like having samples of their work here, others don't. See Commons:OTRS for details of the formal procedure. If you get permission, an admin can always undelete it. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Loadmaster -- I note your addition of the artist's e-mail address in my comment -- that's fine with me, although some of my colleagues might slap you on the wrist for editing another person's comments.
- On the chance that you misunderstand, let me clarify the division of labor. There are nowhere near enough Patrollers and Admins to spend much time on any individual image. If you want this image kept, it's up to you do get in touch with the artist. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, source is not in the public domain (contains a copyright notice), no freedom of panorama in the US. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted work Ferbr1 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Neutral with no context, no categories, no anything, it's hard to tell whether it's in scope or what, but my guess is that the only copyrighted work here is that of the uploader.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If it's not a copyviol. It's a very nice naif portrait. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader is the artist, Antonia Gerstacker. I've added a category. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Jim. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- The uploader is citing a book, as this google search shows. I believe a scan of an image from a book, where the book attributes the image to a public domain source is perfectly acceptable for use here. It is possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nominator cut and paste identical nomination here: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
unused promotion for an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep article at Portugal wiki makes it notable [26], have added image to it --Justass (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I am going to ask the uploader to verify to COM:OTRS, but otherwise, looks good to me. Wknight94 talk 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry if this is not formatted correctly, but I find this system very confusing. I am Arthur Migotto (arttie_br) and I am indeed the author of this image. I give permission to delete this image as it reflects a previous band lineup that does not match current one. I have uploaded a new promo picture instead. Thanks for your concerns. --Arttie br (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to the pic it's from [27]. I don't find it unlikely that such a book would print us-gov images. --DieBuche (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Nominator cut and paste identical nominations for half a dozen other images. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] I agree with DieBuche that it is perfectly reasonable for the book to use PD images. Is it possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij, our uploader, has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator, defferent german IPs but all starting with 80.187 and all referring to a server or user in Gemünden (Wohra), is a sort of sheriff, he passes, nominates and disappears. Anyway the masked sheriff choose accurately his victims: all border-line pictures or categories. And usually he provides a could-be-true explanation for his nominees. But he is a troll. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have added a valid book citation to all images that are discussed here and in the related DRs. If somebody would add the corresponding book pages where each photograph appears, then tell me and I close all debates. I have now added: "Katz, Samuel M. Relentless Pursuit: The DSS and the Manhunt for the Al-Qaeda Terrorists, 304 pages, Forge Books; 1st edition. Page ???". Those three question marks should be replaced by the accordingly book pages. --High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Page 158. Caption is The lethal effects of Ramzi Yousef's "dry run" - the December 10, 1994, bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 (Author's Collection) This was found by searching Amazon's copy of the book which shows the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.204.103 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 June
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Valid source is missing. The uploader states in fact that US Embassy staff is the author of this photograph with the proof "acknowledged in photo caption" - but there is no caption shown. And just stating "US Embassy staff in commission of duties (acknowledged in photo caption)" is not enough - anybody could say that. The uploader must give more details on the source (book/magazine title, etc.). 80.187.106.77 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to the pic it's from [33]. I don't find it unlikely that such a book would print us-gov images. --DieBuche (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- Nominator cut and paste identical nominations for half a dozen other images. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] I agree with DieBuche that it is perfectly reasonable for the book to use PD images. Is it possible for a deceitful newcomer to falsely claim an image scanned from a book is in the public domain, when it is not, in fact, in the public domain? Sure. But Sherurcij, our uploader, has, over the last five years, uploaded thousands of valid, compliant images. So I am prepared to take his assertion that the image was credited to a public domain source at face value. Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Детская порнография Zimin.V.G. (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep high quality picture with clear educational value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not pornography --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is educational. Certainly not pornographic. Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.183.206 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Questionable copyright. The PD-USGOV claim is based on this image being taken from a recently-released video, but the original image itself was taken in 1986, and probably not by the US Government. If this image has no copyright issues, it still should be in JPEG format in any case. Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to White House copyright policy "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." So perhaps we should move this from PD to CC 3.0.--The lorax (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is that we don't have any information on who the original photographer was, so we can't know if they intended for their work to be licensed that way. If you have a source for the photograph (as opposed to the video that used the photograph), that would help a lot. Gavia immer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was provided by the White House. Previous discussions deemed such photos as "unless otherwise noted, assumed to be CC 3.0" see here.--The lorax (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is that we don't have any information on who the original photographer was, so we can't know if they intended for their work to be licensed that way. If you have a source for the photograph (as opposed to the video that used the photograph), that would help a lot. Gavia immer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although it would be nice to know who the photographer was, I think we can rely on the clear declaration of the White House that they have correctly stated its license. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, if it is a copyright violation, it is the White House's problem. Kameraad Pjotr 17:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
According to s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China#Section_2_Performance, this requires the artists' permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure File:Opera-sichuan-mascaras-marionetas-v01-mpg.ogg has a copyright problem. It's taken in a show for tourist where no signs of "No photo/video" and everybody was recording/taking photos there. Colegota (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC) BTW not understand why File:Gulou performance.ogv appears in the same section. Not mine.
- Not yours, but the same problem. One does not need "no video" signs, this is protected by Chinese copyright legislation - see link. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
As Pieter says, the performance is protected by copyright. They may permit you to record it for your own use, but that doesn't give up the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
selfpromotion of an indian music manager (shashi gopal) - in this case: private, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact, that photo is taken from Nobel prize website, does not mean that the photo was taken in Sweden at the moment the person was awarded Nobel prize. Bio of Townes at the source page was provided by Townes himself forty years after the ceremony. One can find the photo in question for example at Britannica website. So I think the photo is wrongly licensed, missing essential information (we don't know, where and when it was taken and who is the author) and should be deleted. --Blacklake (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep First published in Sweden, in "Les Prix Nobel". See this archived version of the biography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Do you have a full bibliographic reference of that publication including its date? Could you please add it to the source field of the {{Information}} template? Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is biography that was published in Les Prix Nobel. We don't know about the photo. --Blacklake (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The series "Les Prix Nobel" always includes portraits of the recipients, always on a page with their signature. I have not actually seen this one, but these pages of the Nobel Foundation use those portraits. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Courtesy of Columbia University, New York [39] --Justass (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've just found out, the source page claims that Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation indeed. --Blacklake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this does not belong to Columbia (compare the contrast). And the copyright that the Nobel foundation had expired in 1989 or so. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Though there is no such phrase in the archived version. --Blacklake (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The fine print says: "Nobel Web does not object to your reproduction, distribution, display, transmission, performance, and use of the Content if done in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act (Upphovsrättslagen, SFS 1960:729) or other applicable limitations and exemptions laid forth in the Swedish Copyright Act and related laws. " /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Though there is no such phrase in the archived version. --Blacklake (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this does not belong to Columbia (compare the contrast). And the copyright that the Nobel foundation had expired in 1989 or so. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've just found out, the source page claims that Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation indeed. --Blacklake (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Blacklake and Justass. The Nobel Foundation may have been playing fast & loose with attribution and licensing for photos it was republishing. — Jeff G. ツ 04:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Looks like PD-Sweden. Lone Guardian (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
Blacklake and Justass have the essence of it.
By the time he was awarded the Nobel in 1964, he had been a full professor at Columbia for ten years and then, later, a full professor and Provost at MIT. These are both positions which would have required a formal portrait such as the one here. It is therefore very likely that he supplied this at some point to the Nobel Committee and much less likely that it was taken and first published in Sweden. In the absence of any evidence of the latter, we must delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This image was previously speedy deleted, though a standard DR process was needed (led to restoration). The objections to this image remain, however (comments were issued, but the creator did not address them). The instructions provided are both superficial and dangerous, trivializing what is a hazardous and toxic process. The image neither adds depth, nor clarification to the the Biodiesel Production Wikipedia page (where it was originally added), and in light of the hazards associated with the process, this image not belong on any Wiki. This image is appears to be an attempt at a "how-to," but is incorrect/incomplete, and as such, and is not usable for education, thus failing SCOPE. Corrections and additions could certainly be made that would allow this type of image to be a valuable addition. A sequence of steps such as those shown in the following image is more complete (though the egg beater addition is inappropriate): http://www.utahbiodieselsupply.com/images/MakingBiodiesel2.gif --E8 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Would be better as an SVG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is good reason. It fails to have any realistic educational value. So it is out of scope. So Delete. Globbet (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is good reason. It fails to have any realistic educational value. So it is out of scope. So
- Delete. A trivial image that adds no useful content to an article that uses it. As an example, its caption, "process involves adding chemicals, stirring, siphoning..." is dumbed-down below any acceptable level of encyclopedic quality. There is no entitlement for an editor's work to be included merely because they'd like it to be so, it has to demonstrate some modicum of encyclopedic value and quality. This image fails to achieve even that little. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Improve it, don't delete it. –Tryphon☂ 09:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. As per Andy Dingley. First time I saw this image I thought it was a joke. Since it only makes sense when all the description information is added to the caption, it is highly unsafe to keep the image in place while it is improved. It needs removing, then improving, then re-posting if it is of adequate quality. -- PeterJewell (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This image could be summarized as:
- Collect vegetable oil.
- ???
- Biodiesel!
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
unused physics diagram - this user (from vietnam, speaking russian) has uploaded several similar images - as far as I see, all unused - for me: unusable , out of scope (missing context) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Redundant image no longer required. Image of the author who requests it be deleted. --CharlieHuang (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Another reason: someone on Wiki is using it as part of a vandalism campaign on my userpage so I wish it be removed so they cannot use it again. --CharlieHuang (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of writing.--KENPEI (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --DieBuche (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Question Does this fall within
- "public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, incorporated administrative agencies ... or local incorporated administrative agencies ...;"
which are not eligible for copyright? It looks like it might be a route map, which would be "instructions", wouldn't it? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also see File:旭川電気軌道（東旭川線）の看板.jpg which is nom separately below. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation of writing, no evidence for Jameslwoodwards theory. Kameraad Pjotr 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of writing. --KENPEI (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Question see my question at the virtually identical file above
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
File:亜古（旭川市東光）.jpg etc.
[edit]
- File:亜古（旭川市東光）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Wakaionna.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rafu.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:人魚（北海道療育園彫刻の森）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:佐藤忠良 (Sato Cyuryo,1912-)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Assuming they are all in Japan, delete. That is not in the captions, however. If the uploader can show that any of them are actually in a FOP country (e.g. Germany, UK), then they are OK. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hipólito Yrigoyen
[edit]- File:Campaña de Yrigoyen.jpg
- File:Homenaje italiano a Yrigoyen.jpg
- File:Primera foto de Yrigoyen.jpg
- File:Regreso de Yrigoyen 2.jpg
- File:Regreso de Yrigoyen 3.jpg
- File:Regreso de Yrigoyen 4.jpg
- File:Regreso de Yrigoyen 5.jpg
- File:Regreso de Yrigoyen.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen asume segundo mandato.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen asume.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen e iglesia 2.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen e iglesia.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen en Rosario.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen en carruaje.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen en el Monumento de los Españoles.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen en la SRA.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen en la UBA.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen pasea por la Rambla.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen rumbo a Entre Ríos.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen y Anchorena.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen y Caballero.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen y Elpidio González.jpg
- File:Yrigoyen y Elpidio.jpg
I know this may sound weird, that I start a deletion request over files I uploaded myself, but there is a user that marked the files as missing source, under a reasoning I don't fully agree with. I requested him to turn them into a mass deletion request, but he didn't did so, perhaps because of not knowing how to do it. So, here we go.
Those images have been marked by user Ferbr1, reasoning that they lack source because the [Instituto Nacional Yrigoyeneano (an Argentine national institute devoted to former president Hipólito Yrigoyen) is not the place where those photos have been first published.
Nevertheless, I think there is enough information to consider those to be press photos of expired copyright, and acceptable for Commons. Under Argentine copyright law, photos published more than 25 years ago go into public domain. Those are some things we know about those photos
- Those photos have the common traits of press photos, as described at Commons:How to detect copyright violations. They take the topics the press usually takes photos about (electoral campaigns, meetings, political events, etc.), they have professional quality, they are close at hand from the national president, etc.
- The man in the photos, Hipólito Yrigoyen, died in 1933. Any photo of him is more or less a century old. And, unlike portraits or artistic interpretations, such photos can't be made after his death. Even more: they are photos of specific and well-documented events. They can't be staged.
- Regular people going around the city with cameras, taking photos for personal usage, is a common phenomenon today, but as pointed those are photos of a century ago.
- The site where the photos have been taken from is a national institute, sponsored by the Secretary of Culture and made official by Law Nº 26.040. It's not a random site or a blog, and it wouldn't use images of unknown nature.
If we follow the "Duck test", if those photos looks like press photos of a century ago, swims like photos of a century ago, and quacks like photos of a century ago, then they probably are press photos of a century ago. We also have the Occam's razor principle, the most simple explanation is probably the true one. --Belgrano (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete In PD-AR you can to read:
Warning: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it, and clear evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago must be given.
- In these images there are no evidences of which they have been published. In the world there is infinity of photographies in black and white that rest decades forgotten in a box before being published.
- If the photographies were published, there are no evidences of which they have been published in Argentina. In the countries limístrofes also press existed, and this personage is sufficiently important as to suppose that his photographies also were published in the foreign press.
- If http://www.yrigoyen.gov.ar/ is a reliable source, the order would be: first to consult them, and later to load the image in Commons. Anyhow, in this page it is possible to read: Personal Files of the Dr. Diego Barovero. There are no evidences of which authorization had been asked the Dr. Diego Barovero to load these images.
- Already there was an analogous situation, and Belgrano was informed that it could not trust in his intuition to stop putting obligatory information on having loaded files.
Ferbr1 (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I had forgotten that part below. As it can be seen in the advertisment, those photos were used at a photographic exposition and were taken from the Archivo General de la Nación (for newcomers, that place is a giant database of all information ever published in Argentina). This rules out both the possibility of such works being published abroad, and of them remaining unpublished all this time. They wouldn't be in the General Archive if either was the case. Belgrano (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep comes from en:General Archive of the Nation (Argentina) Alakasam (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - old photos from the Argentinian press, {{PD-AR-Photo}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, all likely {{PD-AR-Photo}} (photos taken before 1934). Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)