Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Thumbnail is not being correctly visualizated because of accent or other no english ortographical signs at file name. --Valdavia (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to be working... whats not displaying right? J.smith (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept. ~/w /Talk 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Patrick Leahy DNC 2008.jpg QQQQQQ (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete - FYI, duplicate pictures can be dealt with speedily using the {{Duplicate}} tag. J.smith (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work of a 1997 statue by Barry Flanagan MisterSweaters (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in USA. --J.smith (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
derivative work of a 1997 statue by Barry Flanagan MisterSweaters (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama was allowed. (And to the best of my knowledge, still is). --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)- I take it back. (Sorry, I've been away from the commons for a while and haven't really been paying attention to all the nuances of the FOP issue). According to the FOP page, the US doesn't apply FOP to artwork, only buildings. The OP is correct that the sculpture in question is by Barry Flanagan, although IIRC this particular one was made later than 1997. (He did a series of them). The exact date however is immaterial as is was later than 1978. I can't claim I like it but I don't see a way that this passes the rules. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-free license. Owner grants license for non-commercial use MisterSweaters (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- From the source license: "Information contained within this Web site is the intellectual property of The National Collegiate Emergency Medical Services Foundation. NCEMSF grants permission to reprint materials contained within the site for non-commercial purposes with the intent of disseminating information to the EMS community." (emphasis added)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
taken from some newspaper, see picture in editor --Motopark (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Yeah, you can see the dots from the printer. J.smith (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Christoph Blocher (Bundesrat, 2004).jpg, png instead of jpeg. dvdb (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Use {{Duplicate}} instead next time. --Leyo 09:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. omg, dodo, what do you have IRC for? ;) abf /talk to me/ 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
accidential upload, includes personal data 212.152.179.14 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Please delete this image immediately. It contains personal data. The upload was an accident.
- Please delete this image as fast as possible.--DI Florian Fuchs (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose". Really? No source and no evidence of permission. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the uploader really own this image? It may belong to the ECB (see http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/england/npower-tests/npower-ashes-series-2009,1408,BP.html) RobertG (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as obvious CV. J.smith (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Too blurry to be usefull. J.smith (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Not educationally useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ~/w /Talk 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope. J.smith (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- why is that? --Hofres (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the image can serve any educational purpose. You can read the section of the project scope I'm talking about here: Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. I could be wrong and I'm willing to be convinced. J.smith (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
@ J.smith: It (the picture) can be seen as one specific experiment to understand this music :) --Hofres (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is in use (on Hofres' user page), and it can illustrate music or photography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Per COM:SCOPE#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project. Used on a user page ~/w /Talk 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Dupe of de:Image:Gonder fasiledas palast.jpg which will be deleted soon, because of missing sources / author information (image was tagged on dewiki since 4th Oct. 08) Church of emacs (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in 2004, ten days after the date in the EXIF data. I see no reason to doubt that the uploader had copyright and was the author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason given to delete the image. J.smith (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Info There is absolutely no author information but “from de-wiki”. I don't think that coping images without caring about the author information is appropriate according to Commons' guidelines. --Church of emacs (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is making me angry. You are doing nothing to keep this beautiful image, just burocracy. You know who the uploader on dewp was a few years ago, and it is quite clear that this image was made with his camera a few days before. But now four years later the deletion circus is starting. First it was proposed to delete the original on dewp because it exists om commons. Now you are proposing to delete it here because it was not transferred properly, after which you will delete the original. Just fix the problem caused by more stringent rules for old uploads! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose In de we will delete this file becouse there is no author --Daniel 1992 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there is an author. I now put in information template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice the exif data originally and now that there is also an information template, I think it is ok to keep the image, therefor I withdraw this deletion request. --Church of emacs (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A user is claming this image is a copyright violation. The image is hosted on an official goverment website.[1] I am starting this deletion discussion so we can discuss the issue. --J.smith (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info A little bit more background about this issue can be found here: w:User_talk:J.smith#Image_copyright --J.smith (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
To all appearances this is a perfectly regular PD-gov image. I think the editor who nominated it for deletion was a bit overzealous based on an earlier upload of the image that was not accompanied by proper indication of copyright terms (or in this case, absence of copyright). 71.138.164.7 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I left a message with the press-department (with the senate office) and asked them to give me a call back. The campaign office told me they didn't know the status of the picture, but that we can use any picture from http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mediaphotos_standard/ under the condition "All photos must be attributed to "Courtesy of Obama for America"". That might be a good alternative. J.smith (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- No call-back from the Obama people yet. I'll call them again tomorrow. J.smith (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep The high resolution image was published on the official senate.gov page of Senator Obama, convincing arguments and evidence must be presented to show that the photographer was not a federal employee or not on contract ('work for hire') to the federal government (in which both cases the copyright would be PD under U.S law on federal government works) Movieevery (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep That's it! At first it must be proven that the photographer was not a federal employee. --High Contrast (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When J.smith contacted Obama's people last year, they confirmed the photographer's ownership of the image.[2] Maybe the answer will change this year, but that may resolve the concerns brought forth by the two keeps above. --Bobblehead (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per previous OTRS ticket. Not work of federal government. -Nard the Bard 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Derviative work MisterSweaters (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of a stained glass window MisterSweaters (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- From 1922! If it ever was copyrighted, I doubt that it was renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work not sure if it is free Sterkebaktalk 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the images that the user uploaded at enwiki have been copyvios; it does not seem likely that the user has the right to release the image to the public domain. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Original uploader to en-w is en:User:BadboyIain, who may not understand policy or copyright information very well. Unfortunately it seems likely that this user was just marking PD without knowing what it means. J.smith (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Image, although created, resembles trademarked wordmark and may confuse official endorsement, or release of their trademark. Deletion requested by creator. Crazypaco (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to delete an image used in 121 articles.[3] J.smith (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Image:Pittbanner_Heinz.png&from=18587363&back=16068914&limit=20){kind=link}
:*it's only used as a template banner. Easy fix. Please delete per my request, the creator and original uploader to wikipedia. Crazypaco (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- After exploring the issue on text trademarks, I've reversed my thinking on needing the image deleted. Crazypaco (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--HoboJones (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
porno 68.6.139.133 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep See above. Video serves a useful purpose.
- Keep Masturbation is safer Sex - educational use recommended Habibie (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep See above. Educational