Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Wrongly tagged as PD. Screenshot of a title card from a TV show; was originally tagged correctly w/ FUR on the en wikipedia, but a user replaced this with PD + trademarked tags, which led to it automatically being copied across here. I've reverted the changes as it's quite clearly a fair-use claim, but this should now be deleted on here too. (Originally requested this to be speedied, but User:Nard the Bard reverted - not sure why. Have left a note on said user's talk page.) Regards, AllynJ (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nom - sorry, misread the PD tag. Does count as PD. AllynJ (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Spam, no encyclopedid value. BrokenSphere 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete no particular need for this poster. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The image belongs to Eidos and can be seen clearly on tombraider.com (from the nose down). It has not been released under a free license. Dusk Knight (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: No fair use at Commons: /copyvio
Reasons for deletion request --Danielåhskarlsson 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) I'm the uploader of the file. I already had this file uploaded, but it's a little bigger. So this one is the same, so this double you may please erase/delete. Daniel Åhs Karlsson
Deleted by Badseed: Duplicated file
wrong spelling. Empty category. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Empty. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
'Deleted by Rüdiger Wölk: content was: '{{Delete |reason=wrong spelling. Empty category. |subpage=Category:Ploubazlenec |day=13 |month=September |year=2008 }}
Inadapted (tutorial for increasing penis size) 193.48.25.224 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio based on user's other uploads seav (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio based on user's other uploads. Please see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Makati66 Log of user's contributions. First of all, the description tag is suspect ("Own work" with different names of the author in all his uploads). Second, I managed to find the original images in his other uploads, yet I can't find the copyvio source for this image yet. seav (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- deleted,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dubious copyright info, and the image actually shows a model at a museum as far as I know. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dubious info. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious hoax. -Nard the Bard 20:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Error ortográfico AlGarcia (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Iglesia de El Cristo.jpg
quiero eliminarla, 15:49, 13 September 2008 Freddy619
- Delete user requests deletion of personal picture, has no use outside user space. -Nard the Bard 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope/copyvio likely etc etc Herby talk thyme 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside the project scope. -Nard the Bard 23:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Herby talk thyme 13:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
KeepPretty much not a good reason since the image is for my user page ONLY!!!!!. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)- Delete Totally out of scope. -Nard the Bard 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Totally out of scope. -- Lycaon (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete not in the project scope. Sterkebaktalk 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per the Commons FAQ, "any freely licensed media file that is useful for any Wikimedia project can be uploaded", and (as the user admits) this image isn't intended to be useful for any project. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope Yann (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe out of scope and underage person. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope Yann (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe out of scope, underage person and there is no evidence of permission by the person. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Sterkebaktalk 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope Yann (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gallerygirl.jpg (Deletion request from 2008-10)
[edit]Undeletion request had some disagreement over project scope. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
- Keep In use at en:Fulcrum Gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sterkebaktalk 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The description on the english page says "Images of gallery owner used in ads for the gallery". Moreover looks like a collage of copyrighted booklets you find in museus --D-Kuru (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The owner of the gallery has explained at some length at COM:UDEL that he and his wife created this work as they were owners of the gallery. -Nard the Bard 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete To me, this is borderline to what Commons should be about: free educational media. It is more advertising for a private business than anything else, so out of scope to me. Yann (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously out of Commons project scope and advertising for a private businnes. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Broken svg. -Nard the Bard 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The svg-code is just a wrapper for Image:Szlig.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously false license. -Nard the Bard 20:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. no source, no license, no description Yann (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request - This image is a photograph that I took. It is what contributed to mixi(SNS,http://mixi.jp/ ).The contributor is violating copyright. Whity (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbythyme Yann (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Belgium has no FOP, sculptorer is still alive Brbbl (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Belgium :-( Multichill (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- sculptorer is not alive anymore. Michiel1972 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- ps I 'published' this picture on the wall in my livingroom ([1]). Can I use that one as replacement? Michiel1972 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- English: (missing text)The sculptorer must be dead for more than 70 years, so that the copyright can get in the public domain. The photo of the sculpture is a derivative work of the scupture, so the copyright forbide you to publish it under a free licencing : the photo is your work, but the subject is not.
- Français : (missing text)Le sculpteur doit être mort depuis plus de 70 ans, pour que ses droits d'auteurs soient libérés dans le domaine publique. La photo de la sculpture est un travail dérivé de la sculpture elle même, donc les lois belges sur le droit d'auteur vous empêchent de la publier sous une licence libre : la photo est votre travail, mais le sujet de l'image ne l'est pas. Lilyu (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP applies MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Belgium has no FOP and the sculptorer is not dead for 70 years Brbbl (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Junkyard_Alien.jpg
Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously false license. -Nard the Bard 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Converting speedy copyvio to regular deletion, nominated as "copyrighted no FOP" Multichill (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The speedy deletion was from me because Ronald McDonald is a copyrighted caracter of the mc. donald cooperation and there is no freedom of panorama for this picture. --Jodo (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image is at Commons since 12:40, 9 August 2005, Netherlands has FOP, enough reasons to just make a regular deletion. Multichill (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, there IS freedom of panorama for this picture. -Nard the Bard 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfree. -Nard the Bard 20:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
...which qualifies for speedy deletion. Deleted. →Christian.И 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio of the pictured poster. Its use is not de minimis, and there is no freedom of panorama in the US. Sandstein (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete it. I'm the photographer, and this image fulfilled its purpose long ago. To be honest, I'd forgotten it was here or I'd have deleted it myself. —JeremyA (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The permission from bishop of Palencia wouldnt be enough, author (and maybe the holder of copyright) is the Newsagency EFE and they didnt gave their permission. Martin H. (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- posted on my talkpage:
- No hay delito la fotografía es una donación personal del obispo Munilla con Benedicto XVI. Es Munilla quien da la fotografía. --Villeguillo (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Im not disbelieving, that His Excellency Mr. Munilla donates this image to publish it under a free licence, im in doubt, that he is able to do so. The image is credited to EFE, EFE is a professionel News/Image agency, so maybe Mr. Munilla is not the holder of copyright of this image. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete-- The image doesn't follow the proper Common's procedure. We don't have any proper licensing for this image, other than the uploader's claim that Mr. Munilla gave his permission to publish a photo not credited to him. I think this is a blatant case of copyvio, since EFE agency is the real owner of the picture.--DagosNavy (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted; proper licensing not given. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I truly doubt this was self-made. -Nard the Bard 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the life of me I can't remember why I nominated this. Withdrawn. -Nard the Bard 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn Lokal_Profil 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Unclear status, unknown author, certainely copyvio Peter17 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Unknown as of 13 September 2008; no source
pity, uploaded the file myself. No FOP, Scupltorer died 49 years ago Brbbl (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per nomination. --Martin H. (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Procedural listing. Tagged for deletion by 24.99.192.134 on 10 September 2008 with the reason "inappropriate", but no nomination page was created. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- For clarity, I personally oppose deletion: this image has long been used in several Wikipedias as an encyclopedic illustration of Striptease. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Bad licensing, per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lanny Barbie.jpg. -Nard the Bard 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - i have seen worse images. Image is used on more than one wiki Sterkebaktalk 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Sterkebak. --Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work from star wars univers. Also, the drawing is from a comic called : "Open Seasons" ((samples)) --Lilyu (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- hello, anybody home ? Lilyu (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be COM:DW. [[ Forrester ]] 11:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Probably scan from a comic. Yann (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Photographer of this picture is unknown, permission dubious. Another suitable image to illustrate the article about this writer was found. Uploader agrees with deletion, see de:Benutzer Diskussion:Schorle#Bild Gottlob Haag. Rosenzweig δ 10:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per de:Benutzer Diskussion:Schorle#Bild Gottlob Haag. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Likely a copyvio of the images it was created from. ian13 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
Screenshot, not "personal photo". -Nard the Bard 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Beyond the vague accusation of the image being a "screenshot", the nominator gives no basis for evaluation that this isn't a clip from the background of a personal photo released under CC. Even non-free appearances of David Miscavige are rare, so which one is this supposed to be from? AndroidCat (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I'd also like a better motivation. What is it a screenshot from? Only recent video I know of that he's in (there may be others) is the "This Is Scientology" DVD. It's been a while since I saw it but if my memory serves me right that speech was given against a blue background (I'm not sure; my memory is aberrated). So I'd like to see some evidence that it's a screenshot and from where. Entheta (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing on the image page or info would lead me to believe it is not a personal photo as Wen Hsing asserted, and I see no evidence to assert anything to the contrary. Incidentally, I left a note about this Commons deletion discussion at the user's talk page on en.wiki, and I checked but he has not enabled email over there so we can't get ahold of him other than his user talk page at en.wiki. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Unused; lower quality than equivalent raster graphic: Image:US-Army-OR9b.gif and vector graphic: Image:US Army E-9 CSM.svg. -Officer781 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead ,pls.-Evers (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because of the title and consistency with other images you almost have to delete this image. Image:US-Army-OR9b.gif looks way too bright, you should instead use this one: Image:US Army E-9 CSM.svg. PatPeter (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:US-Army-OR9b.gif
I made this map from other previously done and by mistake in an attempt to update this file I uploaded one with a diffrent name. This lastly uploaded is the one being used right now. Pepazo (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader’s request: obsoleted by Image:Magaya client distribution.svg Mormegil (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Unclear status, unknown author, certainely copyvio Peter17 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed Flikr review MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This looks like an official band photo but there is no proof uploader owns the rights. -Nard the Bard 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Originally I thought, that the statement of the ECB suffices that any photo of a euro coin can be used. However that doesn't seem to be true, since it is regarded as a three dimensional work and the photographer of a coin can claim a copyright. The photographer of this coin actually does - see [2] Gugganij (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Coin itself is PD but photo is not. -Nard the Bard 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader may have forgotten to check the copyright status. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a screenshot. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes... tried e-mailing the uploader? Richard001 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- A screenshot......OF HIMSELF. Try contacting him. -Nard the Bard 13:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No explanation of licence for screenshot MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyvio on the “cover page” image, and content is not aimed for Commons but Wikipedia. Outside project scope. Diti (talk to the penguin) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too much advertising, little or no educational/informative value --Richard001 (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What you mean to say is this doesn't have enough porn for you. Of course it's a product placement video. Still not reason to delete it. -Nard the Bard 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a concern that Commons is being used for promotional purposes here, which I think is what Richard001 is getting at. I share that concern. Permissions are verified, but I don't know whether this really falls within COM:SCOPE. The video is being used on w:en:Sybian, so I suppose it does, though I may feel uncomfortable about it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- "What you mean to say is this doesn't have enough porn for you" - are you kidding me? I suppose if the website 'toy's love.com' is the only one that sells the product, and the product is notable, that we could have a video of it, but it doesn't seem to be. The video also ends fairly abruptly (I suppose the rest was of a nature that would make it inappropriate here). Overall it seems like something we would be better off without. Richard001 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I had no idea what it was till I saw the video. Useful to gain an understanding where pure text cannot adequately describe the mechanics and workings of a device. Last 5 seconds are promotional agreed, but if it is under a free licence, we are certainly allowed to snip that bit. Nichalp (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per what Nichalp wrote. Halibutt (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It has a watermark throughout the video advertising the website, which, as I have said, is hardly the only company this product can be bought from. The language used throughout is also clearly of an advertising and not educational sort. It unexpectedly and abruptly cuts out before the women has actually said anything of any value. It seems to like a clear case of complete rubbish to me and I'm surprised so many people see any use in this video. Anyway, while I'm here I'll drop an advert for the related CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Adult videos. Richard001 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I had no idea how it mechnically worked until seeing this video. It does an acceptable job of showing how the machine functions.--99.230.105.92 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good educational content, though I would have preferred it without the amount of advertising. The license would allow the commercial content to be removed or reduced if this was technically possible and other uses may yet be found for extracts from the video. I do not think we should treat sexual material as frivolous or any safe-sex information as unimportant. --Simonxag (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I actually learnt something 76.226.80.60 03:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. in use MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
too much advertising, little or no educational/informative value --Richard001 (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What you mean to say is this doesn't have enough porn for you. Of course it's a product placement video. Still not reason to delete it. -Nard the Bard 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a concern that Commons is being used for promotional purposes here, which I think is what Richard001 is getting at. I share that concern. Permissions are verified, but I don't know whether this really falls within COM:SCOPE. The video is being used on w:en:Sybian, so I suppose it does, though I may feel uncomfortable about it. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- "What you mean to say is this doesn't have enough porn for you" - are you kidding me? I suppose if the website 'toy's love.com' is the only one that sells the product, and the product is notable, that we could have a video of it, but it doesn't seem to be. The video also ends fairly abruptly (I suppose the rest was of a nature that would make it inappropriate here). Overall it seems like something we would be better off without. Richard001 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I had no idea what it was till I saw the video. Useful to gain an understanding where pure text cannot adequately describe the mechanics and workings of a device. Last 5 seconds are promotional agreed, but if it is under a free licence, we are certainly allowed to snip that bit. Nichalp (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per what Nichalp wrote. Halibutt (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It has a watermark throughout the video advertising the website, which, as I have said, is hardly the only company this product can be bought from. The language used throughout is also clearly of an advertising and not educational sort. It unexpectedly and abruptly cuts out before the women has actually said anything of any value. It seems to like a clear case of complete rubbish to me and I'm surprised so many people see any use in this video. Anyway, while I'm here I'll drop an advert for the related CFD at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Adult videos. Richard001 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I had no idea how it mechnically worked until seeing this video. It does an acceptable job of showing how the machine functions.--99.230.105.92 18:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good educational content, though I would have preferred it without the amount of advertising. The license would allow the commercial content to be removed or reduced if this was technically possible and other uses may yet be found for extracts from the video. I do not think we should treat sexual material as frivolous or any safe-sex information as unimportant. --Simonxag (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I actually learnt something 76.226.80.60 03:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. in use MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Request by user who not longer want this image on commons (por que ya no la quiero) --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do we know why? Free licensing is irrevocable by definition, so barring a rather good reason, Keep — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
For further review I like to add, that this is a logo of a completely non-notable, private radio by uploader. Nothing more. The not deletion on uploaders page blanking and hosting of a non-notable privat radio logo here does not seem in-line with our scope. Therefore deleted now, not notable, not used, not usuable. --Martin H. (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. As is everything else in this category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Planet_Comics FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- It says the copyright was not renewed. That makes it public domain. -Nard the Bard 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know that's the case? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you don't have an actual reason to request for deletion? -Nard the Bard 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I initially overlooked the non-renewed template, but that template isn't really proof of anything in itself, so some confirmation would be a good thing. Notice that the user who uploaded it claimed it was "self-made", though that is obviously not the case. So other parameters could have been filled incorrectly too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well it just so happens "Planet Comics" doesn't appear in the renewal database[3][4]. You can review other comics that have been though (try searches like "Superman" or "Donald Duck") -Nard the Bard 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I initially overlooked the non-renewed template, but that template isn't really proof of anything in itself, so some confirmation would be a good thing. Notice that the user who uploaded it claimed it was "self-made", though that is obviously not the case. So other parameters could have been filled incorrectly too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- So you don't have an actual reason to request for deletion? -Nard the Bard 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know that's the case? FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- de-indent. Well actually Ray Bradbury renewed the copyright on one of his stories that was in Planet Comics in 1950. But none of the other ones were. -Nard the Bard 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't know that site covered comics too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neither did I until I looked :P -Nard the Bard 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Notes: I corrected the misinformation as to license and authorship. Per US law material from this era for which copyright has not been renewed has fallen into the public domain. Making a scan of public domain published material does not generate a fresh copyright; it is still public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
belongs to non-encyclopedic article on nl: wiki, person portrayed hardly visible anyway --Simeon87 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is not a free web host, used nowhere, will never be used as far as we can see now. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 11:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
belongs to non-encyclopedic article on nl: wiki, person portrayed hardly visible anyway --Simeon87 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is not a free web host, used nowhere, will never be used as far as we can see now. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
belongs to non-encyclopedic article on nl: wiki, person portrayed hardly visible anyway --Simeon87 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is not a free web host, used nowhere, will never be used as far as we can see now. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version with sligthly altered name HJJHolm (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the new version? Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the dupe at File:IE SLRD-Tree 'hand Holm.jpg so I am deleting this one - Badseed talk 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version with sligthly altered name HJJHolm (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the new version? Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the dupe at File:IE SLRD-Tree 'hand Holm.jpg so I am deleting this one - Badseed talk 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version with sligthly altered name HJJHolm (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the new version? Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the dupe at File:IE SLRD-Tree 'hand Holm.jpg so I am deleting this one - Badseed talk 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version with sligthly altered name HJJHolm (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the new version? Please use {{dupe}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the dupe at File:IE SLRD-Tree 'hand Holm.jpg so I am deleting this one - Badseed talk 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth would this be GFDL? -Nard the Bard 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, missing essential source information. --Martin H. (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Images of Lewinski-Corwin
[edit]- File:Poland in 992 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 982-1025.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1138 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland Fragmentation Period map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1341 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1569 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:1611duchyofwarsaw.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1634-1660 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1772 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1793 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland 1795 map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Poland Lithuania Commonwealth map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Slavic_peoples_9c_map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Only the last image gives a source: Source : "Political History of Poland" written by E.H. Lewinski-Corwin and published in NYC in 1917 available online http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby/
They whole book wa put online by Mr. Kobylarz in 1999, as stated at http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/POLAND-ROOTS/1999-03/0921365567 . It has disappeared since, but is still linked to from e.g. http://info-poland.icm.edu.pl/web/history/books/corwin/link.shtml
As Mr. Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Henry_Lewinski_Corwin) has died in 1953, the claim "This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." is not valid until the year 2023.
Thus, I believe that these images uploaded by User:Kpjas are all copyvios. Matthead (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I see the problem here. There used to be a template {{PD PHoP}} which said these pics were from the public domain publication "Political History of Poland" but someone else deleted the template and changed all uses to pd-old. However, since this work was published in the US in 1917, it is PD. Change license to {{PD-US}} and add some sourcing and move on. -Nard the Bard 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Nard. If an admin could review the deletion of the template and add sourcing per info it contained, all will be fine.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded all of these in good faith, to the best of my knowledge they are PD, as far I can remember they were labeled by my custom template as PD. This is IMO a false positive. Inadvertently blocked account (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (formerly Kpjas)
Kept. License to be replaced. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The author of the text (w:de:Dietrich Bonhoeffer) died 1945, the composer (w:de:Siegfried Fietz) is still alive. I therefore don't believe this can be put under a CC license. -Zupftom (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Ciell (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Copy of existing image:Descent into hell-Russian Museum.jpg with wrong color scheme - too bright. -Shakko (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no harm in keeping the image with a brighter color scheme. I'd say that Image:Descent into hell-Russian Museum.jpg is a copy of the existing Image:Дионисий.jpg, since the latter was uploaded earlier. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One may say that my scan is too dark :) Someone maybe could correct colors a little and upload as new version of this file? A.J. (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ghirla, but this icon is terrific. Green, red etc. are absolutely psychodelic. This is not how russian icon should look like.--Shakko (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept as it's used on numerous wikis. I took the liberty of replacing it with a brighter version of the other file (the levels can be tweaked too, especially blue channel). If you don't like it, feel free to revert me Badseed talk 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
pd-textlogo? -Nard the Bard 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's own work, own picture, it's a problem? do it if is necesary. Georgeok (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you are the author of the design of the T-shirt, it is a derivative work, and its copyright depends on the license of the T-shirt design. --AVRS (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are pictures of Chanel/Valentino dresses, too, on Wikicommons and those aren't considered for deletion. Why? Also, it says in spanish that it is the persons own personal work. --User:Hpfan1 (talk) 17:12 January 15, 2009 (UTC).
- Unless you are the author of the design of the T-shirt, it is a derivative work, and its copyright depends on the license of the T-shirt design. --AVRS (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I think we're safe here, just a tshirt and some letters. The bird is really a minute, almost unrecognizable part Badseed talk 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This image has been taken from a website with no indication of its original source. Since we have no idea who the photographer was, we can't know whether she or he has been dead for 70 years yet and therefore whether this photograph is in the public domain or not. -Rlandmann (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Its photo from http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/kress.html . If it needs name of original photographer - I don`t know, but device on photo used more then 70 years ago :) Aps (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was definitely taken in 1901; but since this is a photo taken in Austria, it's irrelevant for copyright purposes when the photo was taken. The relevant date is the date that the photographer died - the photo will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of that year.
- For example, if the photographer was 25 when he took the photo in 1901, and lived until 1951, then the photo will enter the public domain on 1 January 2022.
- If we don't know who the photographer was, then we don't know when they died, and we don't know whether the photo is in the public domain or not.... --Rlandmann (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The photo is of Dr Kress's tandem wing floatplane from 1901. Leave the picture as it is. It is one of the few known photos of this machine and alas the picture is now 107 years old.
Deleted. Photo presumably taken about 1901 or later. This is not old enough to claim PD-old without knowing the author. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [5]. Yann (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=625341153#File:1kress03_500.jpg){kind=link}
This image was taken in 1975 by some PAVN solder. I'm sure that vi:User:Thái Nhi is not the author, and vi:User:Lâm Tấn Tài is not exist in vi.wiki. So I guess it is non-free. Vinhtantran (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely own work claim. Also web resolution image, indicating that this might just have been taken off some website. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
