Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Faked Mona Lisa pic - fails Commons scope Denniss (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Silly vanity image, CheckUsage finds no use in any Wikimedia project. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)- Delete agree w/ nom that it's outside the scope of the project. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
outside of scope - random contract in pdf format 76.175.162.28 01:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:TheSpiritPanelCC08.jpg -Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unused duplicate with poor name. Anonymous101 talk 10:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
10:53, August 6, 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Picture8.jpg" (Dupe of Image:TheSpiritPanelCC08.jpg) (restore)
"Own work" highly doubtful. Same user uploaded two other, identifiable copyvios of Michael Gambon at the same time as this image. dave pape (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't look like own work. User has uplaoded other copyvios of Michael Gambon. Anonymous101 talk 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader blocked for three months. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate page with a non-descriptive name Lawrencema (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unused duplicate of Image:Bush surge announcement jan 2007.jpg with poor name. Anonymous101 talk 11:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, use {{Duplicate}} in cases like this where the image is not in use. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This image is not a work of the federal government. It was incorporated in one of the LOC country studies, but these often include non-free images. This is "courtesy" the embassy of Cote d'Ivoire (that is, not a work of a LOC researcher). See http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/citoc.html and click on "Party Organization". 76.175.162.28 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no indication of PD status on source. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
photograph of a recent artwork. does anyone know if there is freedom of panorama in cote d'ivoire? 76.175.162.28 08:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Answered my own question (see the new Cote d'Ivoire section at Commons:Freedom of Panorama)--there isn't, and this needs to be deleted. 76.175.162.28 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
non-commercial only permission Mangostar (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete CLearly not an acceptable free license Anonymous101 talk 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
photograph of a recent artwork (stained glass in a modern cathedral) Mangostar (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- As before, no FOP in Cote d'Ivoire. Mangostar (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Cote d'Ivoire. The church was built in 1990 proof so not PD Anonymous101 talk 11:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean with "FOP"? and what does it have to do with that picture? (Krohn)
- I mean freedom of panorama and it is linked with the picture as the window design is copyrighted and the image cannot be uploaded to commons if it is taken in a country without FOP, such as Cote d'Ivoire. Anonymous101 talk 12:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Same reason with the deleted copy Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fblogoshirt2.jpg 78.163.227.2 10:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unfree logo per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fblogoshirt2.jpg Anonymous101 talk 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Afgeleid werk Sterkebaktalk 12:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -derivative work Anonymous101 talk 12:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
this grafic map is not up to date and includes mistakes Novic84 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep It can be fixed. Anonymous101 talk 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)- Keep per as Anonymous101 --Mardetanha talk 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be the photographer of artist sv:Jonas Lundh but the same photo with the same file name appeared in the daily newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad on January 6, 2006 ([1]) who gives credit to photographer Sven Sandström. It is also obvious that the uploader is identical with blocked user Matteus who is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Josephus. Thuresson (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --Mardetanha talk 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Great research by nom. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Uploader claims to have photographed this painting by artist sv:Jonas Lundh but the same photo with the same file name appears on the artist own home page ([2]) It is also obvious that the uploader is identical with blocked user Matteus who is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Josephus. Thuresson (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --Mardetanha talk 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Low quality, unused, superseded by Image:Red-crocus-thread-greek-v2.jpg adamantios (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
no description (we won't get one), bad quality Avron (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Tiny blurry unexplained photo of person. CheckUsage finds no use in any Wikimedia project. -- Infrogmation (talk)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Source is "blogger". No indication of free license Anonymous101 talk 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
wrong name replaced by Preekstoel_Petruskerk_Zuidbroek.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tagged as {{Duplicate}} Anonymous101 talk 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a logo. Very unlikely to be under free license. Anonymous101 talk 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Very unlikely to be" = "isn't". Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The image is erroneous, and I couldn't edit it properly. I'm the original uploader Ojota 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- How erroneous is it? Just because you couldn't edit it, doesn't mean that others couldn't. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's right ShakataGaNai, but here's the right image in jpg format Image:Mapa subte Córdoba.jpg. Alakasam (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed and kept. Usual SVG text-turns-to-black-boxes problem which I fixed. (Uploader: clear your cache if you're not seeing the changes. To solve this problem in future, in Inkscape, select your text and go to the Path->Object to path menu item. It bloats the SVG like crazy, but fixes the problem.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Caption says it was "modelled" on a copyrighted picture, most likely it's a simple trace, and thus a copyvio. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if it is modeled from a book so it is derivative work and should be deleted--Mardetanha talk 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to draw something that looked much like what I saw in the book. If I actually traced the outline, I cannot remember, possibly so, as I use this thin sketching paper that comes in rolls of 50 m. If that is copying, then it's an unauthorized copy and should of course be deleted. I thought, if a work like tht was not ok for commons, someone would probably say so immediately... QueenKwong 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong file name. There is a copy with correct name. Quissamã (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- i have tagged it as duplicate --Mardetanha talk 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
10:26, August 6, 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Eufrásia Teixiera Leite aos 30 anos.jpg" (Dupe of Image:Eufrásia Teixeira Leite aos 30 anos.jpg) (restore)
Wrong copyright info, see http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/dino/hei1927.htm FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not in PD --Mardetanha talk 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, does not belong on this project. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The author of these drawings has not been dead long enough. Please reupload in 2017 ;). Patrícia msg 13:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not the correct convertion of the png-standard: Image:Kit left arm thinblackstripes.png - look at de:Borussia Dortmund (svg exists for the left arm and is not correct. svg for the right arm does not exist and is replaced with the png-standard which is correct) --NiTeChiLLeR (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
unused; bad quality; refer to Image:Steinburg Wappen.png --ClausG (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I will make a new version based on the PNG, I has used the Image:Gemeinde Steinburg.gif version when creating the svg, and didn't have a really good sense of the details in order to make anything better. It'll be remade between Aug 4 and Aug 8, 2008. --Mozillaman (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, ClausG, if you have a vector version of the PNG you created, please upload that. It would save me a lot of manual tracing. --Mozillaman (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- If I had a vector version, I would have uploaded it by myself. --ClausG (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep We don't delete superceded images, someone might have a use for this one within or outside wikipedia and co.--Caranorn (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Valeria Marini 87.19.180.155 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Appears not to be a copyright violation and no valid reason to delete given. TimVickers (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand the reason of that DR. The woman is not recognizable so I don't think there could be any problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Pageflakes gave a OTRS ticket or not, i think that It doesn't matter. The Google Maps Terms of Use say:
- For business users, Google Maps is made available for your internal use only and may not be commercially redistributed (...)
So i think, a screenshot including parts of google maps can't be licenced under a free licence because parts of the Screenshot still remains to be unfree, never mind who is the author/rightholder of the website. Maybe i'm wrong, so it was not a good idea to request speedydeletion. Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can't you Blur/remove any copyrighted parts (there may be more than just the map) of the image and keep the rest (if it is useful)Anonymous101 talk 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment maybe the content of cnn and other parts are also copyrighted. Yes, the copyrighted parts can be removed, but i'm not able to this. --Martin H. (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No action in the last month to deal with the copyvio sections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image was uploaded to the Norwegian Wikipedia after it was uploaded at enwiki as en:Image:Bts.jpg by en:User:Akiroy, who has no other contributions, causing doubt regarding the originality of the image. Paul_012 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What's the problem here? Anyone could easily take this image and put it on Commons. Its a public transportation area and Bangkok is very popular with foreign tourists.I don't see any doubt concerning the picture. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the original uploader, no:User:Kimmam, is very likely not the creator of the image. At the very least, attribution of the image needs to be corrected. At worst, as easy as anyone could have taken this picture and uploaded it, the image may have been randomly lifted off the web. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Many contributors to Wikipedia don't know about WikiCommons. They instead upload their images onto Wikipedia and then someone else has to upload or transfer them to WikiCommons. I had to do this (thankless!) task recently for this image: Image:Egypt 1450 BC.svg. Will this image be deleted next because the original contributor from Romania (A. Nacu) didn't upload it onto Wikicommons even though it has a CC BY SA license? Unless there is proof the above image is a copy vio, it should be kept. The license is clear: public domain. You object to the fact that Akiroy has made few contributions to Wikipedia but this is not clear grounds for deletion. Just change the attribution to Akiroy instead. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Public Domain license is clearly a copyvio of the earlier GFDL version. I have been unclear about the picture's history, though, so allow me to repeat:
- 2006-02-24 Image was uploaded to the English Wikipedia under the GFDL as en:Image:Bts.jpg by en:User:Akiroy, whose only contributions were to upload this picture and add it to the Thailand article there.
- 2007-05-04 Same image was uploaded to the Norwegian Wikipedia by no:User:Kimmam, claimed to be released under Public Domain.
- 2007-05-19 User:Kjetil r uploaded the file to Commons, based on the file at the Norwegian Wikipedia.
- If Akiroy's lack of contributions is not an issue, the image should be kept and file info edited to reflect the earlier upload at the English Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think your latter suggestion seems reasonable. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I change my mind. Delete without prejudice if you wish. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimmam obviously was not the author and the image is not in PD. Since the original image on en.Wp is also marked as doubtful, I don't change the data to that, but delete until the issue there is solved (if it is solved). Cecil (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
en:Statue of Decebalus says this is in Romania, completed in 2004. Romania has non-commercial-only freedom of panorama. dave pape (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Per the previous deletion request. This is a different photo than before, containing a lot more surrounding landscape, but the sculpture is still the real subject of the photo. dave pape (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The sculpture may be located in Romania, but the photograph is taken in Serbia, and Serbia does have freedom of panorama. Apparently, even the other deleted file would be OK too. Nikola (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment This is one of the most entertaining cases I've ever seen.... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)- Comment - Very fine line here, we may wanna contact a lawyer. But anyway, do the laws of where the image is published apply, or does the location of the sculpture itself apply? It's insurmountably permanently located in a public place no matter what, but which laws apply I wonder? I'll put my
on Serbia though. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the place of publication matters for a derivative work. Normally it's the location of the sculpture, as the copyright violation (if there is one) occurs when you create the derivative work (photograph). I don't know either what applies when the work is in one country and the copying happened in another. (I've been expecting us to find a case like this eventually; didn't realize it was this one when I nominated it.) --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- When you say "Normally it's the location of the sculpture [that matters for a derivative work]", what do you mean by "normally"?
- By reading Serbian copyright law, it simply says (paraphrasing) that "it is allowed to make two-dimensional derivatives of works permanently placed in public places", not mentioning that the public places have to be in Serbia. Just as it doesn't specify that the author has to be from Serbia, a work of any author from anywhere is protected in Serbia by Serbian law. Nikola (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the place of publication matters for a derivative work. Normally it's the location of the sculpture, as the copyright violation (if there is one) occurs when you create the derivative work (photograph). I don't know either what applies when the work is in one country and the copying happened in another. (I've been expecting us to find a case like this eventually; didn't realize it was this one when I nominated it.) --dave pape (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.lundh-art.com/img/gallery/466cfd70bb532fbebca8212ea133af98.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Rename it to "Towboat in Iron Gate Danube" to make clear what's the main focus of this image, everthing else is just de minimis. --194.48.128.75 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is interesting. I say Keep... country of origin of the photo is Serbia, I would think. It was taken in Serbia, and is a view from Serbia. "Normally" a work is only visible from the country it is located in, so normally that is the law which is considered, but this is a bit different. The sculptor located his work there, and knew (or should have known) what the Serbian law is, and the consequences of it. The country of the author can come into play for "country of origin", but for determining freedom of panorama status, I would go with the law where the picture was taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Ich denke, hier sollte serbisches Recht als Ursprungsland herangezogen werden. --Marcela (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept on the basis that the law of the country in which the photograph was taken allows such images. Without FOP, a copyright-infringing act takes place at the point when the image is captured on the camera memory (or film). It should therefore be the FOP law of the country in which the otherwise infringing act takes place that should IMO determine the issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a fake image. Not real. Alakasam (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the page http://www.e-river.ru/gallery/help/ it is forbidden to remove the watermark (
- Comment Uploader claims to be copyright holder and has released it into public domain. If this is true, image can be modified without restriction, and may be kept. If the restriction mentioned above is true, it is not a free use image and was uploaded under a false license and image must be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Given the metadata I find claims to freeness questionable.Geni (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is definitely _not_ the CoA of Görlitz. But what is it? AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Das hat wohl eher was mit Johann von Görlitz zu tun. Laut Geschichte von Görlitz wurde das bis heute gebrauchte Wappen Image:Wappen Goerlitz.png erst 1433, also nach Johann verliehen. War Goerlitz_Arms.svg evt. das vorherige Wappen? --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Könnte sein, leider finde ich weder Görlitz noch Goerlitz bei einer Schnellsuche bei Arnaud Bunel (Héraldique Européenne) der angegebenen Quelle, kann also nicht überprüfen wer dies sein soll.--Caranorn (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- It looks to be an SVGification of Image:Armoiries Goerlitz.png (later redone as Image:Armoiries Goerlitz.svg as well). It certainly looks related to the Goerlitz arms (being the right half of the current one); maybe it was an historical version? Anyways, Keep the media, as there is no reason to delete them. But definitely change the description to note the uncertainty, and probably rename if more accurate information comes up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed Odejea's version. I have a copy of Loutsch and can now confirm that these are the arms of the dukes of Görlitz (p. 41 Loutsch). Note, crowned, armed and langued or is a variant, so all three images mentioned above are heraldically correct.--Caranorn (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep according to the above I vote for keep, it's not necessary to rename the image either I feel as it's obviously older than any municipality. Note I'll just modify the text accompagnying the image to explain these are the ducal arms.--Caranorn (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
POV. No source provided, that points this territory to be Greater Armenia. I think, other images from user's gallery should be deleted as POV. --FHen (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There is no such thing a COM:NPOV. Sometimes POV images are useful on Wikipedia to illustrate a paticualar POV Anonymous101 talk 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not even particular POV. I've never seen such interpretation of Greater Armenia. --FHen (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ive updated it. It now shows Armenia and the disputed de facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I have added a source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provid sources to Image:Greater Russia.PNG and Image:Greater Germany.PNG? The current images are pure fantasy, germany does not even fit to any of the historic boarders of germany (until 1918, until 1937). The images are poor pov. Ther is no historic political, geographical or cultural context, it does not fit on w:Großdeutschland, there is no context to politics, cultur or geography today and in future. --Martin H. (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ive updated it. It now shows Armenia and the disputed de facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I have added a source. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here right im not been funny but i really can not be bothered finding sources for these pics. Ive got better things to worry about in my life than "has this picture got a correct reliable source". Delete all them greater pics for all i care. I uploaded the pics encase anyone wanted to use them. Not to project my POV on to wikicommons. Like i said, im not really bothered if you delete them. Edit them or add sources, im not bothered. The community on wikicommons doesn't seem very helpful which is a shame, because they are on other wiki-sister projects. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think, western Armenian border according of en:Treaty of Sèvres is analogue for other "Greater" maps. But I don't think, that it's good idea to draw such maps to wiki, because it's really huge part of fantasy in this maps. Can be useful, for example, draw territories of countries in their biggest raise.. or maps including all territories whenever entered in the country --FHen (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Note taht this user created entire gallery of useless maps: User:Ijanderson977/Gallery/Greater Europe. All of this is out of COM:SCOPE. All should be deleted. --Sombrero (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project Scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
