Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
No Good Sourc43 Sterkebaktalk 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Closed. Already deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, but I don't think this guy is gonna cut the mustard...known as our scope. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Licensing is not free enough, because it does not allow derivative works. -Nard the Bard 00:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Nard's rationale. Maxim(talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Neither author nor date are given, so we cannot know if this really IS PD-Old. Rosenzweig δ 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Found out about the painter myself; it's Hyacinthe Rigaud (1659-1743). Knowing that, we kan keep the image. --Rosenzweig δ 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Code·is·poetry 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons' scope Guérin Nicolas (messages) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Professional, aerial photograph, low res, file name looks like a webcopy, no indication of release. MBisanz talk 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pure copyvio. See first hit back from google images. See http://imtsinghua.com.cn/2008/03/27/shia-labeouf%E2%80%99s-father-is-moses/ (March 27) 222.225.125.64 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a screenshot of non-free material (Bloglines.com) nandhp (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
defect --Wickey (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept, no it is not defect, the software is simply not able to create thumbnails from images with such a high resolution. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
seems nonsense. --Wickey (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Of course it does, until you ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE THIS ILLUSTRATES. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
_and_Group.JPG){kind=link}
Speedy kept, useful in use and properly categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
seems nonsense. --Wickey (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. It's a picture of yogurt. It's low quality and nobody's going to include this picture in an encyclopedia article on either constipation or yogurt due to it's poor quality. -Nard the Bard 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category split into two, Category:Bus depots in the United Kingdom and Category:Bus stations in the United Kingdom. This category is therefore no longer needed as all images are in either one of the two new categories. Deleting this cat will avoid any potential confusion. --Arriva436talk/contribs 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the rights of this photo lies by the flickruser. A other page in this serie says flickrpage says (AP Photo/The Morning Journal/Paul M. Walsh) Sterkebaktalk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's hard to presume this is a free image Anonymous101 talk 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - Speedily. It's sourced to a Ohio gov page, and the Ohio gov images are not free. Anonymous101 talk 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was published at Flickr with a non-commercial CC license where no derivations are allowed. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Brynn Yann (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
SVG file without any educational content, it's not and won't be used on WMF projects. 
Diti (talk to the penguin) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep Could be used in an infobox or userbox. -Nard the Bard 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Nard the Bard Arriva436talk/contribs 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
copied over to ketogenesis.png Uthbrian (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of Image:Ketogenesis.png. --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
image was nominated for speedy and was deleted, i recreated it and nominate it for a regulare deletion request, because there are strong indications, that the Commons uploader is the Flickruser.
- Same name on Commons and Flickr, Flickr user is photographer of the images
- Commons user uploaded only images from this single Flickraccount
- Only a crop of this image is aviable at Flickr.
--Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake: The Flickr image is not only a crop, it is a totaly different image. --Martin H. (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- The correct source is GOODYEAR_BLIMPS_OHL_5947728 --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free image-I did a mistake-sorry Xic 667 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation of AAFP article: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000101/151.html Wouterstomp (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio indeed. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I have sent an e-mail for permission but, seeing as that might take a while, I too vote for deletion until such permission can be verified. Sorry! 24.106.210.234 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, they won't release it for free distribution. Delete indeed! FoodPuma (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the rights of this photo lies by the flickruser. The flickrpage says (AP Photo/The Morning Journal/Paul M. Walsh) Sterkebaktalk 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, the Flickr user is the Commons user, he just confirmed this to me per Flickrmail, he can do with his images what he wants. --Martin H. (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
But the flickrpage say's the photo is taken by (AP Photo/The Morning Journal/Paul M. Walsh) is thay also the flickruser? Sterkebaktalk 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have no doubt, that the Flickr user is Mr. Walsh, yes. He also uploaded a lot of personal images to his accounts, he has a profil site and he sign his messages with his name. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all signs show the flickr account is really the author (check the other links on his profile) Lilyu (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept, licence was changed on Flickr, self published work by User Escapedtowisconsin. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
as of COM:SCOPE. Unused (even not for userpage) private image of a young student. Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The public domain claim is highly dubious because:
- It seems derived from a professional studio photograph
- The subject was a famous American actor
- The image seems to be related to a film currently protected by copyright (The Verdict)
- The author/photographer is listed as desconocido (i.e. "unknown")
- As the author/photographer is unknown, the copyright status cannot possibly be known
Therefore, it is unlikely that this image originated in Argentina and subsequently fell into public domain. —Danorton (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was probably my mistake. I took it from an argentinian magazine, which published the photo 25 years ago (1983). In argentina, photos which are published in this year are of public domain, but probably i dont see the others questions listed here. I apologyze. Aleposta (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, that's understandable. Just because something is in Argentina doesn't mean that Argentina's laws apply world wide to it. For Wikipedia Commons, the Berne Convention (es) only extends Argentine copyright expiration to items for which Argentina is the "country of origin." In this instance, that seems unlikely.
- If you do not dispute this request, please delete the item yourself by placing this tag at the beginning of the article.
{{speedydelete|Uploader concedes that PD claim is dubious.}}
- That will save the admins some work. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done =). I apologyze again. Regards, Aleposta (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, along with derivative Paulnewman new.jpg. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect image, marked over 30 days ago with Template:disputed chem, no objections since. Not used in articles. Correct version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Edgar181 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect image, marked over 30 days ago with Template:disputed chem, no objections since. Not used in articles. Correct version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Edgar181 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect image, marked over 30 days ago with Template:disputed chem, no objections since. Not used in articles. Improper file format. Correct version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inappropriate file format. --Leyo 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Edgar181 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Very poor quality, improper file format. Not used, other versions of higher quality available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Edgar181 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality, improper file format. Marked over 30 days ago with template:low quality chem, no objections since. Not used, better version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Edgar181 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality, chemically incorrect (missing stereochemistry). Not used, correct version available. NEUROtiker (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Edgar181 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Poor quality. Not used in articles, better image available. NEUROtiker (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks to have been replaced with Image:Reaction Tyrosinase.svg --J.smith (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete See above. --Leyo 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Edgar181 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
suspected (c) violation - appears to be promotional image SkierRMH (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I actually know both uploader as well as the portrayed. Will send email. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have confirmation an email has been sent to OTRS for confirmation of status. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per OTRS permission. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted Nestle logo -Knownot (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I added a "Trademark" template. Also, I notice no deletion image has been placed on the image page yet. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. as obvious copyvio of the artistic image printed on the box. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
copyrighted image from emedicine.com, no proof of permission (eg via OTRS). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry! I forgot I needed to forward my email to OTRS. It was sent as of Sun 10/5/2008 4:21 PM. Please give them time to review and ensure that I did get permission. I do believe that was my first image upload to Wikipedia, so forgive me for misreading the rules! 24.106.210.234 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, my first upload got deleted as well. You shouldn't take this personally.
- Per this diff which shows an excerpt of the email, I think this can be deleted. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I also got a response to my second email stating they would not release it for free distribution. At least I will know next time! FoodPuma (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-free image © Regentsprep Frogger3140 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, looks {{Pd-ineligible}} to me. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep yes, keep... but remove replace the copyright tag with a pd tag. J.smith (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Author = Party photographer" - not uploader's work to license. dave pape (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bild wird nicht benötigt. Naoag (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- But it could be used, it's not bad or totally useless IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. the picture is not necessary, i am the author off this picture and i want to delete it. please respect this arbitration.--Naoag (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a reasson where for you wan't to delete it. Because you give it away under a free licence that licence stay's even when deleted. Sterkebaktalk 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- shold i have a reasson, if i want to delete my own picture? i think there a better pictures to show door handles.--Naoag (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept as this photograph is used within two Wikipedia articles. This photograph has been put under cc-by-sa-2.5 by the author and this can not be revoked. Sorry, Naoag. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
dubious copyright status (copyright info in summary is different from license template). --Kakurady (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Fair use on Commons Sterkebaktalk 08:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This image isn't used anywhere, and there isn't an article on "Estatua Assu" on either the English or Spanish wikipedias --Jonjames1986 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Hi, isn't used anywhere is not a reason for deletion. There is no article about the statue is also not a reason, espacialy not if there is no article in the english or spanish wikipedia, the description of the image is portugese, so maybe the city is the city of w:pt:Açu in w:pt:Rio Grande do Norte. --Martin H. (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: and again: the uploader is from Natal (capital of Rio Grande do Norte), so my assumption may be right. --Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded the image, the pic is mine. Someone deleted it from the correspondent page, I put it back again. --Rodrigo César 15:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, Image:AlHirtStatue.jpg, Image:FatsDominoStatue.jpg
Photos of modern statues. Ooops, I think I have to plead post-Katrina distraction when I uploaded this set. Derivative, no? --Infrogmation (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfortunately, they are derivatives. No FOP in the US for these. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic, the car was occupied when photographed and the faces were poorly blanked out. Not needed, better images are available. Sable232 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned, unencyclopedic. The image is so dim and hazy that it's unusable. Sable232 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned, unencyclopedic. The image is too hazy to be usable, better images of this vehicle exist. Sable232 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It is encyclopedic as a photo that illustrates the car in question and is properly categorized. Not the best photo we have of the vehicle, but I don't object to having additional images of somewhat lesser quality illustrating valid topics in categories. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, it's a book www.pandora.com.tr/urun.aspx?id=67363 --Mach (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The uploader is apparently not the author of this image. There is no OTRS confirmation yet nor an OTRS-pending notice nor any rationale why this could be PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Rossz fájlnév. Dupluma megvan hu-wikin, nem tudom így beilleszteni. Teroses 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated file: Image:Kresz Géza-sírja.jpg
In response to edit wars over Image:Chav.jpg. I also suspect this as a copyvio. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather see this image remain at least long enough to see if the contributor of it is going to in good faith provide the provenance needed to determine if it is indeed their own work. I suspect not, but we shall see. It's not a very good image, artistically, but if it finds legitimate use and is properly licensed... ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No license was provided after 2 weeks. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
invalid liscnse, picture not used 71.112.242.119 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep License valid. Mr. Mario (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image outside scope, random unused picture of non-notable person. -Nard the Bard 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. --75.47.157.211 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, outside of scope, and even deleted on Flickr. Mormegil (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Image was originally uploaded to EN by a sockpuppet of a now-banned user with a history of making false claims of image ownership. Was moved to Commons by another sockpuppet. License is suspect based on source. Image does not illustrate anything of encyclopedic interest and is not currently used on EN. Orlady (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - image could be used, checkuser didn't say it was a sockpuppet yet. I would say AGF and keep. Sterkebaktalk 08:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Nominating this image for deletion untill all user contributions of this user where copyright violations, i asked the uploader at User talk:Krys501#and again: Your Uploads. Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
An old image, as per its article in English Wikipedia, it taken in 1961. I believe that it is not the uploader creation. OsamaK 17:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama, artist of painting died in 1958 Polarlys (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why no FOP? COM:FOP#United_Kingdom says British FOP applies indoors, even where you have to pay a fee to enter. -Nard the Bard 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - uploader was not the photographer and no permission was forwarded to OTRS. J.smith (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete FOP in the UK does not cover 2D images such as paintings, so permission is needed from the photographer and from the painter as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an image of a painting. It's an image of a three dimensional display which happens to include the painting. It's a photo of a collection, as it plainly states. -Nard the Bard 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The painting is too prominent to be allowed under COM:DM. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
_and_Group.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Group.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"Author = Chinese Journalist" - not PD-self. dave pape (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
_and_Group.JPG){kind=link}
- Note - the first version of this image is a completely different photo, but has no source and does not look over 50 years old; neither version is likely to be PD-China. --dave pape (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is a real photo, however, it is copyrighted in a book I just read, I forgot the title. But it is copyrighted.129.10.229.56 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would it happen to be "Mao a Life", if you read the description box the uploader was upfront with where the image came from and who the author was.KTo288 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a real photo, however, it is copyrighted in a book I just read, I forgot the title. But it is copyrighted.129.10.229.56 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as according to the uploader's statement all her uploads constitute copyright violations. This picture was apparently taken during the trial of Jiang Qing at some time between late 1980 and early 1981. Hence, {{PD-old}} does not apply as for some of the other images she uploaded which she also wanted to have deleted. The uploader stated that "I took this picture from my book" and gave as author simply "Chinese Journalist". We do know nothing about the contracts between this unidentified Chinese journalist and the publisher of that book. And having a permission to print an image for a book does not necessarily imply the right to publish it somewhere else and to claim that it is PD. Moreover, the uploader also told afterwards that she hasn't written any books, i.e. "my book" refers only to a book owned by her. This image was even tagged as {{PD-self}} which is contradictory to the claim that this photograph was shot by someone else. In summary, we do not have permission, the uploader apparently had no permission to upload it to the Commons and it is unlikely that this changes as the uploader was banned indefinitely since 17 May 2008. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
_and_Group.JPG){kind=link}
- File:Gelöbnis.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KSK-Scharfschütze in Hubschrauber.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Norwegian QRF during Harekate Yolo II.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The PD license is wrong. The image may be by the German army, but it is not part of a "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment" (no official work), meaning it is NOT in the public domain. Rosenzweig δ 12:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Images from the Bundeswehr are not public domain, added two images from this uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Schwieriges Thema: Fotos von Bundesbehörden. Die Lizenz passt sicher so nicht, aber im Endeffekt sind die Bilder Eigentum der Bundesrepubik. Hier muss es doch eine Gesetzliche Verwendungsmöglichkeit geben, schliesslich wurden diese durch mein Steuergeld finanziert. Wurde dieses Thema schon einmal auf Commons diskuttiert? Gruss HBR (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Rechtlich nicht schwierig, sondern eindeutig: keine amtlichen Werke im urheberrechtlichen Sinn, damit nicht gemeinfrei. Vgl. de:WP:UF und diverse Archive dort. Wenn du die Bilder verwenden willst, darfst du dich gerne bei der jeweiligen Behörde um eine hier akzeptierte Lizenz oder dergleichen bemühen. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig δ 18:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Rosenzweig, i.e. {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply in these cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The EnWiki version of this image is sourced to http://mclub.te.net.ua/vcat.phtml?action=va&singer=3653 where I can find no indication that this image is public domain or free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Sherool. Note that on 13 October 2008 this image was deleted on en-wp on similar grounds as there was no response to the inquiry regarding this image on the talk page of the uploading user for some time. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This image named incorrectly the the same as Image:ConfucianismSymbol.PNG and other places to represent the Confucianism Symbol w:Confucianism, when in fact it appears to represent the word marrige please see, references, comments User talk:Jeepday and Image talk:ConfucianismSymbol.PNG and in the edit history of s:Confucianism where it was deleted --Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to File:Shuangxi.png — the Chinese character in question is "shuang1 xi3" (double joy/happiness), which is typically used in marriages to wish joy and happiness to the involved. This is obviously an incorrectly named file. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. To be renamed as proposed by Jappalang above Badseed talk 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Gimp_splash.png 2008-03-01
[edit]
Is this really free? -Nard 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uhh yeah, would GIMP purposely distribute non-free artwork with its software? ViperSnake151 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. lol. - Rocket000 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Gimp_splash.png 2008-10-06
[edit]
http://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html says "The copyrights on these images are owned by their respective original authors. These images are distributed as part of the GIMP package released under the GPL. If you want to use them outside the official GIMP web site, please contact the original authors." This sounds exactly like our disclaimer, that while all text is GFDL, individual authors retain their copyright interests (and thus are available to relicense anyway they want). However someone else thought that meant this image is a copyvio. I removed the tag so we can discuss it instead. -Nard the Bard 19:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The wording on that is very odd (contradictory, even) but it seems reasonable to assume we could use the images under GPL. J.smith (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, I added that, because another newer GIMP splash uploaded by me, was removed because of that. I hope this will be discussed here a little more. Soeb (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept Uhh yeah, would GIMP purposely distribute non-free artwork with its software? 06:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Images of sputnick
[edit]- File:Blanc-Mesnil_24_octobre_1998.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Corro fly 006.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Corrosive teuf Sens 1999.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Corrosive tour 90s.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Spanish Revenge 1997.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
and related cateegory : Category:Corrosive sound system
Reason : I have help the uploader, and create the category. It's his own work, but after discussion with him, we found out it was made using photos from internet, thus derivative work. I request deletion. Lilyu (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment None of the images is currently used. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... how did you communicate with Sputnick? In the contributions of Sputnick I see just the five but uploads but nothing else. Nor did Sputnick enable email. If these pictures are indeed made using photos from the Internet, could you give us the URLs? Is this music group notable? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was IRC talk, i'm sorry. Notable ? i dunno, it does have an article on french WP fr:Corrosive sound system, but if the suppressionists see it, there is some chance the article is deleted ;)
- It's not the problem... The thing is, the guy was part of the group, he's got a blog and is into internet, he made an article on french WP, came on IRC chan to get some help that i did provided. Yes, he's the author of the flyers, but the images used were just grab on internet via google.
- The images are not used, the author have agreed to delete them, he doesn't understand a thing about commons and asked me to deal with the procedure stuff. They are copyvios... i just inform you. If you want more informations, just contact him : http://www.myspace.com/jillcorro --Lilyu (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. All unused and not useful anyway. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Gabsoft logo.jpg and others
[edit]
- File:Gabsoft logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gabst Chat Logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
permission in summary and license template conflicts --Kakurady (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the other uploads by User:Gabst:
- File:Gabsoft Logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gabst Chat 1.0 Screen Shot.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gabst Chat 0.90 Screen Shot.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gabst Chat 1.5 Full Screen Shot.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no copyright problem with the logos as in all three cases {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Likewise the screenshots do not seem eligible for copyright. However, none of these images is used anywhere and Gabsoft and its product Gabst Chat do not seem to be notable. I would recomment to 
Delete the whole lot as they are all out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Neither in use nor useful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)