Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The worst wersion of this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Apolonia_Ustrzycka_z_synem.jpeg --Mareczko (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no evidence it is under stated license Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Cecil (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
no evidence that any of the photos are under a free license Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
no sources/licenses for any component images Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I add the sources and more licences in the image. Transfer (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Transfer, would you mind changing the license to be just cc-by-sa (only). 7 of the images are PD, so that is no problem, but for the last two the only common license is cc-by-sa-2.5 (But any version will do). Then you've got all the sources there already, and we can close this DR. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Everything looks good to me. If there are any additional problems with the image or the arrangement of the licenses, consider contacting uploader directly. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"released to use on Wikipedia.org" is not free enough. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. We need a clear statement of license allowing commercial and derivative use as well as freedom of distribution. --jonny-mt 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete release for use on Wikipedia in not a free license and, as commons only accepts freely licensed content, this must be deleted. Anonymous101 talk 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Cropped version of an sxc.hu image (Image:Pierced-girl.jpg) that was deleted because it had no permission. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Indeed ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Real estate broker advertisement. --Brynn (talk!) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As advert & blocked. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"unknown photographer" does not give enough information to verify license Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally Image:Master System 3 120 built-in games.jpg --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Additional image sites a source of a company. Deleted both. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Advertisement text and logo placed centrally on image which cannot be removed without losing a large part of the image. Brynn (talk!) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. There must be somewhere else that has a higher quality, non watermarked, copy of this image ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a copyrighted image, and no information given on who this might be. --Axelv (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no descrption, no other contribs by user. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks fishy to me. High res - but no exif. Photo is from a 2006 award show. I've had a look on Getty and wireimages but couldn't find a match. It could a genuine upload - but it feel dodgy. Megapixie (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User has one other image of this subject deleted for copyvio. I found many similar images, but couldn't find the exact one. Thought obviously this picture was taking by a pro-photog at the event. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User has history of uploading copyvios and This looks like a professionally taken image. Anonymous101 talk 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfree image, as photographs of models and sculptures are not covered by freedom of panorama in the US, where this image was taken. 59.167.247.2 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The image looks fine to me as long as it isn't a copyvio. If one deletes images of natural fauna, there would be no pictures of wildlife in the US. (User Leoboudv--sorry I can't find a signing tithe on my Wikicommons page)
- I'm the original uploader-- I took this photo, in the US. Freedom of panorama in the US does not cover sculptures or models such as this. I'm not sure what you mean by "natural fauna", but this is not a picture of a living animal ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No reliable source is verifying the title, description and the image itself. how should we believe that it has really hapened in israel? Wayiran (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Although I do not believe the reason given by the nominator is valid, the image seems to be a copyvio of http://pgabiram.scientificlegacies.org/2006/08/haifa/war-photos which is (c) by Lenny M. not en:User:Jokeofanarticle Anonymous101 talk 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regrettably, en:User:Jokeofanarticle is no longer active on :en. But someone might ask Lenny M. (Len2004@gmail.com) if he gives his permission. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- why Len2004@gmail.com ? --Wayiran (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Please delete it. More than 10 days from the deletion request has passed and still the image is not deleted. --Wayiran (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- why Len2004@gmail.com ? --Wayiran (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 15:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused private picture. -- Cecil (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with fire. --jonny-mt 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image depicts an incorrect chemical reaction, is listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams, and has been replaced. Edgar181 (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Image:QuinineOxidation.png has recently been uploaded to replace this incorrect image. --Leyo 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The image depicts an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams for more than a month without objection. Edgar181 (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Low-quality image, doubtful copyright status (claimed own photograph, but doesn't look like a photograph, more like a low-resolution screenshot). Uploader has made several false uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Even at this low resolution, I can see the pixels from the video compression. --jonny-mt 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has a history of copyvios and this looks like a low res screenshot. 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Dubious copyright status, Claim of being self-made patently implausible. Uploader has made whole series of problematic uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has a history of copyvios, doesn't look very left made. Anonymous101 talk 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. GFDL tag, yet "Copyright expired" in the permission field? Dubious. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Better duplicate at :Image:MSR-Artist Concept.jpg --Urhixidur (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tagged as a {{Duplicate}} in favor of the non-bordered, higher-resolution image. Both images are used across the projects, so we need to wait for User:CommonsDelinker to replace the instances. --jonny-mt 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused. -- Cecil (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image description page is a fluff resume to boot. --jonny-mt 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Better version at :Image:Mars Polar Lander - Configuracao.jpg --Urhixidur (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, superseded by same image at a (sightly) higher resolution. Anonymous101 talk 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is superseeded and duplicate image --Panoha (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see any image that this is a duplicate of/or has been superseded by. (I looked in the search results and in your contributions) Anonymous101 talk 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep Indeed. There's pictures of the same (I think) Scania truck, but not from this angle. Good picture, though I've put a {{Rotate}} tag on it. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete it! Its wrong file, I uploaded better version of the picture --> Image:Scania 6x4 tractor.jpg Panoha (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept this file and deleted Image:Scania 6x4 tractor.jpg instead - lossless rotation. Kimse (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Who took the pictures used in this image? What is their copyright status? Svens Welt (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not the uploader. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, on the 4 uploads from this user, 2 were deleted as copyvios. I am nominating the 2 others. Lucasbfr (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, on the 4 uploads from this user, 2 were deleted as copyvios. I am nominating the 2 others. Lucasbfr (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The copyright license for this image on flickr is Commons compatible, however, it is a copyvio. There is nothing at www.manager-mania.com to indicate screenshots are freely licensed. Brynn (talk!) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment After I requested deletion, the uploader contacted me and I've walked him through obtaining permission for screenshots. I've received an email, that includes the new license information and permission, from what looks like a legitimate Manager-Mania email account, and have just now forwarded it to OTRS for review. I've placed an Otrs pending template on the page. Brynn (talk!) 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS'd ShakataGaNai ^_^ 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
copyvio (Unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted image.) --Alanyst (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It's a mosaic that is based on an artistic work made in 1982. --wL <speak·creatively> 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No real source named. How can a license be concluded from a myspace site? Who took the picture? Svens Welt (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. True, the original picture includes a Marine, but that doesn't mean that it was taken by an on-duty Navy employee. Especially since the Marine in question is apparently her fiancé: the photo could have been taken by anyone. Pruneautalk 15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
and other upload by Acjcian2 (talk · contribs). Most likely moview screenshots/promo matereals. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Cecil deleted
Copyright violation
Now it is no more.
Appears to be publicity shot or movie still. Uploader is highly unlikely to be copyright holder. —Angr 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like this photo was edited to make a CD cover. The CD dates from 1995, at which time the uploader was 5 years old. Delete. Pruneautalk 15:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be publicity shot. Uploader is highly unlikely to be copyright holder. —Angr 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not free == ongewijzigde vorm te verspreiden. Veranderingen zijn niet toegestaan --> translation : You may not edit the picture Sterkebaktalk 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Actually that is the text of the GFDL. You can not edit the license text, not the image. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The file is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. The file is pure fantasy, does not represent anything but the creators imagination.t -- J Logan t: 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete i have no objections for deletion --Oren neu dag (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep amusing. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ridiculous and out of scope.--Caranorn (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- No strong opinions either way. Uploader has no objections and the only uses are on his user subpages, so delete if it bothers some people. Rocket000 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No harm in keeping it, and you never know, the Holy European Empire may one day want to use it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The file is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. The file is pure fantasy, does not represent anything but the creators imagination. -- J Logan t: 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Starscream (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC) very nice and interestingly interpretation.
- Keep in use on several user pages. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic: commons is not a webhost for porn. Patstuart (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic image. Reverend X 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, he's just pissing in an ocean of piss. ViperSnake151 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- *she's - Rocket000 04:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Emmm.... where is the porn? I see some pubic hair, a wine glass and some cyrillic (?) letters Mutter Erde 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Great I love it! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.128.63 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Out of scope. There's no need for "watersport images" --Herrick 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Compleatly useless. Jorva 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Out of scope" is hyprocrisy since it illustrates urolagnia. "Porn" is also hypocrisy since there's nothing really pornographic on this particular picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it's really difficult to find non-pornographic AND free-to-use illustrations of urolagnia. This picture is one of these rare possibilities. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - 1) this image is not used in an article anyway, and strikes me as more of a personal collection, and 2) Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg works great, where as all this image shows is a person peeing in a glass and says nothing about the above condition. As far as I can tell, it's only pornographic. Patstuart (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment TwoWings, I notice you defend images like these a lot. Just keep in mind, nearly every image in the world illustrates something. That doesn't mean it's in our scope. Hardcore porn can illustrate an article on hardcore porn, but will it? Not for very long. Personally, this image isn't worth it. It's poor quality and doesn't effectively illustrate anything, yet it is the only pic we have of someone pissing in a glass (that I'm aware of), if that's important :/ - Rocket000 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I defend that kind of pictures when I think it deserve to be defended. I already voted "deleteé for other nude/"porn" pictures. And the reason why I defend those kind of images is because they are more likely to be deleted for personal non-neutral POV than any kind of pictures. So this lack of objectivity makes me want to defend them more than any other picture that will easily be defended by other people. I hate censorship and exagerated prudishness. So when it's not porn and when it has an encyclopedic value well yes I will defend it. And it's the case here: it's not porn as some say it and there's not much illustration for such subject. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I wasn't saying that like it's a bad thing. :) I hate censorship too, but there is a difference between deleting a picture for moral reasons (oh no, it's porn!) and deleting a picture because it's useless. The latter I'm completely ok with censoring. (That and censoring because of copyrights, of course.) And you're right, these types of images do get targeted more, but I that's not a bad thing either. We might not care about keeping a few useless sunset images, but we do mind keeping a few useless penis images (the consensus, I would say) . We got a reputation to consider. We don't want people coming to Commons to look at free porn and we don't want Commons to be an outlet for exhibitionism either. On the flip side, we're not an encyclopedia, and we're not here just to host encyclopedic content (Wikipedia's the only encyclopedia out of all of Wikimedia). The thing is most borderline "out of scope" images can usually find a use on userpages at the very least. However, content like this usually doesn't belong there.
- I appreciate you defending images you think are useful and risk censorship over content, but most of these aren't being nominated simply because of the content. Honestly, I think the censorship is taking place with a completely different type of images. Images that offend people in other ways, such as racially or politically. - Rocket000 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I never accused you of accusing me! I was just pointing out problems and the reasons of my struggle! Anyway I can understand what you mean about tje useless penis images etc. But in this case, we "unfortunately" don't have other better quality illustration of the same thing. If we had it I would go for a deletion but it's not the case. What's more, this picture has some sense when it's taken with its "sequel" image, i.e. Image:Drinking urine.jpg. The illustration of urolagnia is the confrontation of these two images and those are not strictly pornographic. They're actually less pornographic than the third urolagnia image we have on Commons (Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg) but for some reason I've never understood there's never any problem with explicit drawn porn!!! Anyway as I said such subject doesn't have any better illustration on Commons so as long as we don't have any better one these two images are useful. (the drawing doesn't illustrate the same aspect of urolagnia) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket and TwoWings; on the topic of useless penis images. Have you ever counted the number of Commons' images showing female genitalia and compared that to the number of images showing male genitalia? I think there are quite a moderate number of male genitalia images, but we are compleatly overwhelmed with female genitalia images. Jorva 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just using that as an example, we may have more female genitalia, but I think male genitalia is uploaded more. People just have less of an issue with female nudity. Penis images are used in vandalism a lot too. - Rocket000 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rocket and TwoWings; on the topic of useless penis images. Have you ever counted the number of Commons' images showing female genitalia and compared that to the number of images showing male genitalia? I think there are quite a moderate number of male genitalia images, but we are compleatly overwhelmed with female genitalia images. Jorva 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I never accused you of accusing me! I was just pointing out problems and the reasons of my struggle! Anyway I can understand what you mean about tje useless penis images etc. But in this case, we "unfortunately" don't have other better quality illustration of the same thing. If we had it I would go for a deletion but it's not the case. What's more, this picture has some sense when it's taken with its "sequel" image, i.e. Image:Drinking urine.jpg. The illustration of urolagnia is the confrontation of these two images and those are not strictly pornographic. They're actually less pornographic than the third urolagnia image we have on Commons (Image:Pissing-illustration.jpg) but for some reason I've never understood there's never any problem with explicit drawn porn!!! Anyway as I said such subject doesn't have any better illustration on Commons so as long as we don't have any better one these two images are useful. (the drawing doesn't illustrate the same aspect of urolagnia) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I still don't think this is a very useful image, however, it is the only non-illustrated image of the subject we have that actually shows the action. And as TwoWings pointed out, this is one part of the two photo series, when taken together effectively illustrates urolagnia (i.e. it's not just someone pissing in a glass). Is it pornographic? Maybe to some, but we have a lot of images that someone or other would consider porn (For example, I consider this, this, and this as porn.) - Rocket000 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per TwoWings. The fact that this may be considered pornographic is totally irrelevant. Oven Fresh 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the fact that it's unencyclopedic does, a fact which you have failed to address. Patstuart (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes it is: The fact that it illustrates urolagnia and that it makes sens connected to the other picture is a fact which you have failed to realize! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.199.247 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- w:WP:JUSTAVOTE applies well here. Patstuart (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic & therefore out of scope as well. --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say it's unencyclopedic? Isn't urolagnia an encyclopedic subject? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Urolagnia is a valid subject - I do not consider this a good example and you are at it again - you have your opinion which I respect & I have mine - please respect it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I respect it. I just wanted to know why you thought it was unencylopedic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Urolagnia is a valid subject - I do not consider this a good example and you are at it again - you have your opinion which I respect & I have mine - please respect it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say it's unencyclopedic? Isn't urolagnia an encyclopedic subject? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
senseless stuff, isnt it? abf /talk to me/ 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per above discussion. —Giggy 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty base (in before "Commons is not censored"; we're also not meant to be a repository of random gross-out pictures). I don't see how this is even vaguely educational or useful. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep For 2 reasons. First because this has already been kept and there's no new argument for its deletion. Second because this picture makes sense as an illustration of urolagnia when it's seen with the other picture mentionned in the description. It's a kind of diptych and the two pictures only make sense when they're seen together. So you just have to read to understand. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Needless to say, if this is deleted the other one should be as well. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well this DR seems to be only about one picture so why isn't it mentionned? Indeed it would at least make more sense. But the fact is: it ilustrates urolagnia, urolagnia is an encyclopedic subject, and we don't have many illustrations about that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Needless to say, if this is deleted the other one should be as well. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. You know what I don't like ? - clouds. Obsence things hanging in the sky. Lets delete all the images of them on commons. And images of fish as well - they aren't even wearing any clothes! We shouldn't be censored because otherwise we start picking up bias (anti-nudity, pro-nudity, pro-Judean people's liberation front, anti-People's Judean liberation front). The photograph is at least reasonably arty (in a Larry Clark kind of way). Commons shouldn't be censored (within the bounds of the law). And it damn well shouldn't be censored based on individual users tastes. Megapixie (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - watersports is a fairly well documented sexual fetish, and this illustrates it fine without any problems of identifiability. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Business ad file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not used since Nov 2007 file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image depicts an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams for more than a month without objection. Image is superceded by a correct SVG version Edgar181 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I agree. --NEUROtiker (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Only been in disputed cat for 2 weeks. Why not give it a little extra time? ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Own work" doubtful - Uploader User:NDFAN12 claims to be 19; photo is said to be from 1992. dave pape (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
And I'm doubtful that he was 3 when he took the photograph. Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
University course file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image depicts an incorrect chemical structure and has resided in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams for more than a month without objection. Image is superceded by a correct version. Edgar181 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted, no PD. Rosenzweig (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- According to the copyright notice and to en:Talk:Stars and Stripes (newspaper)#Copyright Status, material from the Stars and stripes is not a work of the US Government. --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite claims on image page there is no such Flickr image and it seems to be from iowacornethanol.com which is Copyright © 2007 Iowa Corn Growers Association Anonymous101 talk 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Image not on Flickr and 'direceted electronics' is a commercial company that is very unlikely to u se a free license Anonymous101 talk 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Poster designed by Olle Hjortzberg (1872 - 1959). This has been deleted before, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1912 olympics poster.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative of copyrighted work --Szczepan talk 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
no information about copyrights of the newspapers Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
unlikely that ABC would release their work under GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, yes it is. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
copyright statement at bottom of screenshot says All Rights Reserved Rat at WikiFur (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Does not meet any conditions of PD-Polish Jarekt (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Does not meet any conditions of PD-Polish Jarekt (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Does not meet any conditions of PD-Polish Jarekt (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moved to :Category:Mars missions --Urhixidur (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
'Deleted by ShakataGaNai: Empty category: content was: '{{delete|Moved to :Category:Mars missions}}
and other uploads by Fmujicaf (talk · contribs). Most likely taken form the Web. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Found them at [1]. Cecil (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'd like this not to be deleted to allow users to easily multi-license images with the required commercial, and the noncommercial licences, so they can easily be used by NC projects. I can't edit Template:Noncommercial or Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, only "view source", so someone please replace the speedy with normal delete. --- Jeandré, 2008-07-21t10:29z 10:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment The template should be kept and this discussion closed as an improper venue. You're looking to change Commons licensing policy, which requires that commercial use be allowed. While you're certainly welcome to start a discussion at Commons talk:Licensing in an attempt to change this, please be aware that this is longstanding policy based on a Wikimedia foundation resolution. --jonny-mt 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)- Keep - No matter what you do, Commons may only host purely free media. Non-commercial only media can only be used under fair use on Wikimedia projects where allowed, and we do not accept fair use. period. This template and its redirects is used to prevent people from uploading noncommercial only images, which are not allowed. If you with to tag your image additionally with a NC or ND Creative Commons license, use the metatemplate {{cc}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Info: "You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use." - Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. "If you will be using a certain license many times, consider creating a new template." - Template talk:Cc
- Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 and other NC licenses allows NC multi-licensing, making it easier for NC projects to use.-- Jeandré, 2008-07-21t16:20z
Speedy Kept. Please raise policy discussions at the Village Pump or on Commons:Licensing. This is not the place for them - sorry. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contents moved to :Category:Venus missions --Urhixidur (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-21t12:48z
- Keep I believe {{category redirect|Venus missions}} is more appropraite than deleting as editors are likely to use Category:Venus Missions Anonymous101 talk 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moved to :Category:Mercury missions --Urhixidur (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I believe {{category redirect|Mercury missions}} is more appropriate than deleting as editors are likely to use Category:Mercury Missions Anonymous101 talk 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)