Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Misnamed, I have already uploaded replacement Tomfriedel (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Likely flickrwashing - uploaded to flickr shortly before transfer here; only image in photostream; low res professional-looking shot; tineye shows several matches. dave pape (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
From back cover of a book - not "own work". dave pape (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I took a picture of this image myself Davepape. I'm not sure how else we can get an image of her to show to the world because she is virtually nonexistent online! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenoirh (talk • contribs) 05:43, 23. Dez. 2008 (UTC)
- Impossibility to get a picture with a correct license does not allow us to host a copyrighted one, sorry. However, if the picture was taken by a photographer died more than 70 years ago, it is ok, but I don't think so. --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. I guess I'll just have to re-upload it in about 40 years or so. (: --Mlenoirh (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted bottle artwork. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted can artwork. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, delete all this pictures too. Happy Holydays! Jorge Barrios (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "If we delete this we have to delete all this other good images" is not an argument for keeping a copyright violation. --~/w /Talk 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
bad license ("all rights reserved") I completed only the deletion request. Svens Welt (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the design of the character is protected. Eusebius (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad name --Sveter (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 20:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bad name --Sveter (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 20:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Scope - possible copyvios - Can't find a reasson where this could be used. Abigor talk 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Herby talk thyme 08:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Reason for the deletion request: Same category Category:Naka-ku, Yokohama exists. This category seems not to be used. カテゴリの重複（こちらのカテゴリが使われていない模様） -Hohoho (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete to avoid duplicate categories Fg2 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. In this case, please use {{Speedydelete}} tag next time. Thank you. LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 04:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
test image Danielveyde (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as uploader request. Lugusto • ※ 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
no screenshot Polarlys (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
kept, screenshot --Polarlys (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
This might not be a self public domain image, unless the uploader is the owner of GMM Grammy, PLC. I completed only the deletion request. Svens Welt (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation
This might not be a self public domain image, unless the uploader is the owner of GMM Grammy, PLC. I completed only the deletion request. Svens Welt (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation
Out of Scope Abigor talk 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted {{Logo}} + scope abf /talk to me/ 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope possible copyvio Abigor talk 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted clear case of ou-of-scopeness ;) abf /talk to me/ 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Image looks like one which AP or Reuters would take. A check on TinEye brings up these results, but I can't seem to be able to track back one step further to find the original. Tabercil (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
the image is scaned, not PD-self, and no source --shizhao (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Source is offered.--Symane (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
DeleteThe image is not in PD，published in 2001, its aurthor is unknown, collected by 王咨臣 or 万人俊, they are all alive.--SMartneddy(talk) 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The image in scaned, not PD-self, and no source --shizhao (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Source is offered.--Symane (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
DeleteThe image is not in PD，published in 2001, its aurthor is unknown, collected by 王咨臣 or 万人俊, they are all alive.--SMartneddy(talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a logotype for a Swedish company and the website says Copyright 2008. This is this users first contribution and might not be aware of free licensing Ainali (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted {{Logo}} abf /talk to me/ 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
SCOPE - possible copyvio - Abigor talk 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted do you know {{Copyvio}} & {{Speedy}}? ;) obvious case of Fail ;) abf /talk to me/ 17:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
copyright demaison.net Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No sign of authorization, and clearly someone intended to assert copyright, since it's right there on the photo, PD tag claim notwithstanding. --Closeapple (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work, focus on game, person not of any interest at all Polarlys (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Image appears to have JPEG damage at bottom, and image is more a personal photo than an example of game play. Out of COM:SCOPE: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Already plenty of images of this game at Category:Settlers of Catan. --Closeapple (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted COM:DW + COM:SCOPE + personallity rights = deleted. abf /talk to me/ 17:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work, people not of interest Polarlys (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted same as File:CatanSiedler.jpg abf /talk to me/ 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo/shield of an organization. Nearly all sorority and fraternity shields are copyrighted. As a national organization, the shield should have a source. But, it does not. The site says that the sorority is copyrighted. And, we don't know if this is the shield. --miranda 06:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted we have to expect the image is copyrighted and the license is sure wrong as this is sure not own-work abf /talk to me/ 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope, not used, just another financial person. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted clearly out of scope + not sure if it's own work abf /talk to me/ 21:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this picture can be useful (really poor quality, no real subject, only a plain-color brochure cover). Eusebius (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Eusebius because File:Brochure0102.jpg was also overloaded with a plain-color sheet after I've asked him (the uploader) about a proper licence. --Herrick (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted unused, the images where for normal eyes containing nothing than a scanned colour abf /talk to me/ 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
derivate work ~/w /Talk 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted I agree abf /talk to me/ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Background map taken from google maps. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted google maps is copyrighted abf /talk to me/ 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation - source is listed as "SEMIKRON Website" Ozhiker (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted no permission was given abf /talk to me/ 21:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The overprinted text on the screen suggests that it is rather dubious that this is the uploader's own work Stifle (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted screengrab, maybe governments work, but I can not find the image. abf /talk to me/ 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from not free 1971 photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, even {{PD-Ukraine}} does not help this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose what about PD art? See no problems with it. The image contributes to the article, its quality ist not high in order to use it in commercial purposes. --Alex Tora (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope, not used. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, out of the project scope, possibly even a copyright violation (as it's an album cover, but it looks pretty innocent to me). I see no real use for this to be on Commons, or why anyone would use it. Garden. 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf /talk to me/ 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. SchuminWeb (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (note:I am the photographer and uploader). Illustrative of type of satrical risque themes of Mardi Gras krewe. There are Mardi Gras articles on Wikipedias in multiple languages, therefore topic is encyclopedic. Commons categories and galleries offer availibility of wider and deeper information on the topic than can be contained in article with a small sample of images. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, on the same basis as Infrogmation. I wish we had the analogous level of detail on parades from 50 years ago. It would certainly be of use to anyone researching what these parades were like at different points in history. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not used. Uploader's only global contribution Gothika (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Source site says:" © 2005 Club Balonmano Antequera - Todos los derechos reservados". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
U.S. sculpture from 1996 (c.f. [1]). No FOP in the U.S.; sculpture copyrighted. Lupo 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Empty file: only a "xlink:href" to a local image Erik Baas (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image appears to be missing and/or corrupt. Edgar181 (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This character is copyrighted by Masami Kurumada. deerstop. 11:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Diti: Derivative work
wrong name, was replaced by File:Khán đài B - Sân vận động Quốc gia Mỹ Đình.jpg --Lưu Ly (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact duplicate, unused. Lupo 10:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a scanned picture from an old magazine or newspaper, it's quite impossible that the author is the copyright holder considering the date of the picture (probably the 80's) --190.233.56.213 21:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. can be found here, but no primary source. Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
derivate work Polarlys (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work. I agree. abf /talk to me/ 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted board game. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced picture without publication year, publication title, publisher name and/or author. Deleted by Maxim and restored by Yann. COM:L says that all files needs a source of origin and IMHO this one is deletable, but since I don't have any plans to start a Wheel war on it... Lugusto • ※ 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the image don't have a source. Far as I kwon every image need a source, so.... Béria Lima Msg 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and admonish the restoring admin. As someone who works on Henry Fielding related pages, I saw the original delete and was planning on meeting with Maxim in order to discuss finding the information. This image is from a frontispiece. However, after searching through 18 different books on Fielding, I could not find the frontispiece. It is very hard to find, and there are other images that could replace it. This image, although in the public domain, needs to have proof of the artist, date, etc, before it can be certain of such. I think the restoring admin went about this completely inproperly, and such actions resulted in a problem that should not have happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Deleting this kind of documents because the source is lost is just utter stupidity, especially when the image is used. The source is important to be sure that the image is PD. In this case, there is no ambiguity about its copyright status: it is PD. The source is an additional useful information, but not essential. The policy stating that an image has to be deleted because it lacks a source, is not well written, but the worst are the admins who apply the policy blindly. A work has to be deleted if there is a potential copyright problem, and the lack of source may concour with that sometimes, but not in this case. Yann (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image style clearly dates to the 18th or early 19th century. It is most certainly pd-old and is likely also more than 125 years old (as in created before 1884). --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Personally my concerns with documents of this age without a provenance is not that we are infringing on someones copyright but that we might be misled, for example how do we know that this is a picture of Fielding and not someone else? If someone with an interest in the topic and has looked through 18 books on the subject cannot find the image maybe its possible that this is not a picture of Fielding. However in this case the University of Adeleide Library has what appears to be a colourised version of the image we have, here, so someone with a thicker skin than me could perhaps ask them about their image.KTo288 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted only per policy. This case is difficult: Per the clear common sense and all we can see we're able to assume this image might be {{PD-old}} but per out policy this is not enough unless there is a clear indication (using a source) the image is {tl|PD-old}}. So if you'd like not to see such images deleted please apply a change of policy ;) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Was marked for speedy deletion, the reason given was:
- I am the copyright holder and the posting of this on Wikimedia Commons violates the copyright. I am requesting a speedy deletion. Tostie14 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note this file has been reviewed by FlickreviewR in 2007. Regards, →Na·gy 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is some more information on the file, supplied by User:JesseW. This is from an independent movie Yellow Lights by Tostie14. It is a good image, in use on 35 pages in 22 wikipedias.
Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if it is a good image if I am requesting it be deleted and all usages removed? Tostie14 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- You had released it on a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if it is a good image if I am requesting it be deleted and all usages removed? Tostie14 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete The fact it is a good images does not mean anything. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - free licensing is, by definition, irrevocable. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep if you're indeed the copyright holder and released it under a free license then that's irrevocable. -- Gorgo (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks to have been released under a free licence. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As was noted on the entry for this photo, there was a personality rights warning. The reason I have changed the license on this photo and requesting it be taken down is because the subject of the photo (the teacher) is requesting that all uses of it be removed. 98.176.40.91 07:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been tagged speedy again[2]. --Túrelio (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Teacher_writing_on_a_Blackboard.jpg&diff=17705552&oldid=17705494){kind=link}
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; no permission
For privacy reason; request by photographer and depicted person, who seems to be a real teacher at a real school. Depicted person is clearly identifiable and, as per photographer and original requester[3], has never signed a model release. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Teacher_writing_on_a_Blackboard.jpg&diff=50662792&oldid=40582616){kind=link}
- Delete, though it is a great shot and as of yet we don't have optimal replacement images (File:Chelsea, England, Spelling Lesson, 1912.JPG, File:031118-F-0000S-008.jpg, File:Landaff 1940s.jpg, File:Aschiana in Mazar-e-Sharif.jpg). It is not that much in use anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Pieter, this DR is not about copyright/license. It is all about an individual that does not want her fully identifiable image distributed all around. Obviously the Flickr uploader and/or photographer wasn't fully aware of that initially. Though we don’t know all the details, a teacher is not an actor, who would have to tolerate a bit more publicity. Contrary to other cases, the image has been removed from our source (Flickr). This suggests that the request is honest. Anyway, in the very unlikely case that this request wasn’t for the declared personal reason, but to allow full commercial exploition, we would be able to restore the image, as we have a positive Flickreview report. Taken together this is not (or less) about law, but about courtesy against another human being. And, yes, it is sad to loose this image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons has gazillions of images without a model release - it is not a reason to delete. This image was used in 35 pages in 22 wikipedias before it was deleted out of process. It is an excellent photo, with proper release of copyright by the author. The subject is in a movie, and that film has not been withdrawn as far as I can see. And indeed, the photo is shown here, where the subject is identified by name. And this photo is still avaliable on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's indeed a little bit strange. Thanks for the thorough research. --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteIf you would like the full history of how this photo ended up here, I will provide it. I am an Olin College professor, and this is a photo of me, taken while I was an extra in a student-produced film at Olin College. The photo was taken by our college photographer, and was not the first time he had taken photos during a student activity. His photos belong to the college and in the past were used only for college publications. This is the expectation I had when the photos were taken. The student film producer posted many of the photos on Flickr on a free license. I was not aware of this until I saw this picture being used in an ad that I saw on Facebook. Since then, I asked the student film producer to remove the permissions on Flickr, and I have attempted to have the photo deleted from as many sites as I could. I did not realize that it appeared on Wikipedia until just a few months ago, and realized the matter was even more urgent when I saw my photo in a Wisconsin political ad, clearly taken from Wikipedia. I did not sign a model release and would prefer that the clearly recognizable image of me not be used. It seems easy enough to make the decision to delete it from Wikimedia Commons. I realize that I may never be able to track down every last usage of this photo on the web, but if it is deleted from here, that will help matters greatly. I apologize if I am not following the correct format to comment here, but I only created an account to be able to explain the situation.Professicat (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to en:Personality rights#United States, Wisconsin adopted a statute about personality rights; you might be able to sue them for damages for the political ad. And indeed, a TinEye search shows that your image is widely used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, ask Pieter and you surely get an unexpected, but substantiated proposal ;-). However, since we now know the background history, we should really delete the image to avoid further damage to the depicted Lady. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo may have to be removed because it lacks permission by the college photographer, Michael Maloney (college photostream on Flickr). It seems likely that it is a work for hire, that the college owns the rights, and that Tostie did not have the right to give it a free license on Flickr. Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo may have to be removed because it lacks permission by the college photographer, Michael Maloney (college photostream on Flickr). It seems likely that it is a work for hire, that the college owns the rights, and that Tostie did not have the right to give it a free license on Flickr.
- Hehe, ask Pieter and you surely get an unexpected, but substantiated proposal ;-). However, since we now know the background history, we should really delete the image to avoid further damage to the depicted Lady. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to en:Personality rights#United States, Wisconsin adopted a statute about personality rights; you might be able to sue them for damages for the political ad. And indeed, a TinEye search shows that your image is widely used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's indeed a little bit strange. Thanks for the thorough research. --Túrelio (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons has gazillions of images without a model release - it is not a reason to delete. This image was used in 35 pages in 22 wikipedias before it was deleted out of process. It is an excellent photo, with proper release of copyright by the author. The subject is in a movie, and that film has not been withdrawn as far as I can see. And indeed, the photo is shown here, where the subject is identified by name. And this photo is still avaliable on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, the file is good. And yes, free licenses are nor revokeable. But, per the concerns raised above (questionable copyright holder, personallity rights, ...) we can't be sure, the file is free enough to keep it. abf «Cabale!» 10:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No evidence for permission by the artist Wei Jane Chir. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing artist's permission. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Description:"Part 1-3 of the becomeALPHA sphere model"; not in use, unsuitable graphics format, difficult to see possible use. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We are a database of 3,706,757 freely usable media files. I believe not in use, or difficult to see possible use are no good reassons for deletion. It's not up to us to decide what should be used or not. I believe the image fits our scope. Abigor talk 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Sanbec (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Unused, low quality so hard to read and the lack of a clear description makes it difficult to consider it to realistically have any educational value so beyond the scope of the project. It appears to be promotional material relating to some training programme. There is also potentially a copyright issue because we don't know for certain that the uploader is actually in a position to be releasing this content under a free licence. I apologise for nominating this for deletion just after a previous deletion request has been closed. For some reason I'd added this to my watchlist, so it just came to my attention, but never commented on the deletion previously. Adambro (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe the description means something like "Part 1 - 3 of the Alpha-sphere-model, which is in the works". The lettering is on the edge of being illegible - it took time for me to see that it said "Persona". I had proposed it for deletion because it was impossible to categorize. Now it is in the junkyard of category:Diagrams, a category that needs diffusion. Stuff like this is just in the way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
no author, false licensing Nickpo (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Cover of the manga volume (ISBN 4-7962-4425-5). --Don-kun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Next time tag with {{cover}}. --BrokenSphere 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Cover of the manga volume (ISBN 4-7962-4425-5). --Don-kun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Next time tag with {{cover}}. --BrokenSphere 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
May fail {{PD-Russia-2008}}; unclear if Mr. Lissner died before June 22, 1941 Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Oh my, he died 1941. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, we can safely assume that in the age of 67 Lissner did not serve in the Army no worked in the defense industry Alex Bakharev (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
corrupt? Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to what declared under "licensing", this 1929 image can't be free from copyright for having been published in the Usa prior to 1923. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep LoC says: "No known restrictions on publication"; (Bain collection). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work abf /talk to me/ 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This photo originates from the webpage of the Holocaust denier David Irving himself: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Irving/photos/index.html and http://www.fpp.co.uk/Irving/photos/Hochhuth/image2.html. Wikipedia should not make itself a speaking tube for this form of propaganda. Uploader User:AchenbachXXVI has never produced any other edit.--KWa (talk)12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright free; both Irving and Hochhuth are notable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- We got other pictures of David Irving and of Rolf Hochhuth on commons. I do not think we are (or should be) dependant on material that supporters of a political extremist such as Irving feed us with. --KWa (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason to suppose that the uploader is a supporter of Irving or of Hochhut. And even if he was, it would not matter in this deletion discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is absolutely true. I am not in any way a supporter of Irving or Hochhut. Quite the contrary, actually. And I find KWas suggestion that I am one of the "supporters of a political extremist such as Irving" both outragous and disgraceful. It is an ignorant statement. User AchenbachXXVI (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason to suppose that the uploader is a supporter of Irving or of Hochhut. And even if he was, it would not matter in this deletion discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- We got other pictures of David Irving and of Rolf Hochhuth on commons. I do not think we are (or should be) dependant on material that supporters of a political extremist such as Irving feed us with. --KWa (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Pieter on the politics issue. On the relevant question of copyright, Pieter, where does it indicate that the image has been released on that webpage ? (couldn't see that indicated anywhere). Megapixie (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- It says so on the page Pieter linked [4]: "These photographs are provided for use copyright free unless otherwise indicated". At [5], there is no such indication, whence the presumption of it being "copyright free". By contrast, there is an external source given at [6], which therefore presumably is not "copyright free". Lupo 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The question if user AchenbachXXVI is an active supporter of British historian David Irving who has been barred from entering the countries Austria, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and South Africa again due to repeated incidents of Holocaust denial, who has been imprisoned in Austria in 2006 for his criminal "re-engagement in national socialism" and who has later been banished to the UK or not is meaningless in this regard. That AchenbachXXVI cannot be a supporter of "Hochhut" is evident since he does not even know the author's correct name: Hochhuth. It is remarkable, though, that AchenbachXXVI has never produced any other edits than uploading the Irving Hochhuth picture at Wikimedia Commons and issuing his apologia here which shows the central importance of this ominous issue to him. Irving's recent involvement in the controversy regarding Bishop Richard Williamson from the Society of St. Pius X showed again that Wikimedia should rather consequently steer clear of any kind of material related to endeavours to excuse racial hatred and genocide. --KWa (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The source is irrelevant. As stated previously, this photograph is copyright free.Generalstaben (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The copyright status is fine. We are a media file repository and we do not sensor images. We just collect them, and leave it to others to decide whether they want to use them. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - Abigor talk 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in us in en:Beard Liberation Front; please check usage before you nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I had checked before I place the nomination. Two minutes after my nomination it was added. So please check the time log before telling me to check first. I have Reverted the image and text out of the English Wikipedia article. It was sandbox message. Abigor talk 19:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I now checked time logs: you nominated 2 minutes after the image was uploaded?! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did, that has a name. Patrolling new images Abigor talk 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, two minutes is too fast. Do not make this into a competition in who is first. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness, cool down please, you two. Abigor is doing a great job with patrolling new images. This nomination was not a mistake, even if it's outdated now. abf /talk to me/ 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, two minutes is too fast. Do not make this into a competition in who is first. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anyway, it is no longer in use, and I have deleted it as a private image of no realistic educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
orphaned, has questionable value, as it can only be used as a website banner for this school's website. originally deleted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Memorial_High_School_(Waukesha,_Wisconsin), revision history : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Memorial_High_School_(Waukesha,_Wisconsin)&diff=256731675&oldid=256730976 --Fangfufu (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence. Unlikely to be own work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot find a free license on the source site www.myspace.com/smart9000 by the artist Jon Petter Etnestad. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Description says "artist impression", so it's unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright unless he/she is the developer. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, low quality, not used. Gothika (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright doubtuful. Unlikely to be a work by Hayez, as he does not have any works in line drawing in his gallery. In the least is a tracing over a original painting. 189.122.6.119 10:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep to me this file looks like a scan of a book illustration. The "History of Arts" [7] shows it as a work by Hayez. Silenus (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep nominator's rationale makes no sense. This is clearly an early-mid 19th century linear print. Hayez made many lithographic prints, as any book on him will tell you. See Lithography's first half century: the age of Goya and Delacroix: artists' lithographs in Europe : 1801-1851, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Paul Barlow (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Obviously created by Hayez. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
copyright doubtuful. Unlikely to be a work by Hayez, as he does not have any works in line drawing in his gallery. In the least is a tracing over a original painting. 189.122.6.119 10:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep to me this file looks like a scan of a book illustration. The "History of Arts" [8] shows it as a work by Hayez. Silenus (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep nominator's rationale makes no sense. This is clearly an early-mid 19th century linear print. Hayez made many lithographic prints, as any book on him will tell you. See Lithography's first half century: the age of Goya and Delacroix: artists' lithographs in Europe : 1801-1851, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Paul Barlow (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Obviously created by Hayez. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
source is unclear; certainly not clear if it's public domain under {{PD-Russia-2008}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient licensing information, uncertain PD status. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Not used; unsuitable file format; image contains uploader's own name twice. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also delete user's other uploads from June 26:
- File:Clase persona.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Clase polimorfismo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Clase_herencia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Relacion_simple.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Relacion_mensaje.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Relacion_encapsulamiento.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- None of these diagrams is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. None of them in use, we have much better stuff in Category:UML. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Image is from http://www.maltavista.net/en/list/photo/1421.html, which allows use with attribution, but the site cites http://www.airphoto.com.mt/ as the source, and it's unclear whether the original photographer allows unlimited use and distribution of this image. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. The maltavista.net website permission is insufficient anyway, because they only allow "use" and not modification. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No description, not in use, unsuitable file type. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I searched a bit for the usage and found it. The image refers to here fr:Discussion_Portail:Génie_mécanique. The link was incorrect. I fixed on the fr wiki. Imo, it would be better to ask someone able to do it for a svg, and to add the missing explanations that can be found (in french) on the talk page. Esby (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Text needs to be fixed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
painter died in 1950; too recent for new Russian law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why would Russian law apply here? Vladimirski was a Ukrainian painter, thus I assume {{PD-Ukraine}} applies. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-Ukraine}} MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Imagen de muy mala calidad, existiendo la alternativa vectorial File:DB25 Diagram.svg ;imagen sin uso tras revertir ¿ensayo de edición?/¿vandalismo? museo8bits (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep I guess if someone couldn't view SVGs or maybe someone wanted a rotated version of File:DB25 Diagram.svg, then this file might be of some use. I don't think it's "vandalismo" and plus the SVG that's it's probably taken from is in the public domain. Jolly Janner (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Jolly Janner. Kameraad Pjotr 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for permission by the person speaking (en:Lawrence Lessig?); I am not certain if such permission would be needed. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Already Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
derivate work ~/w /Talk 20:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Next thing people waring these masks? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please check also with Category:Carnival of Venice, these are the masks you can buy there and the people wear. I do not think that they should de regarded as artworks. - --Lucarelli (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment as costume... they would get the same protection as clothes (i.e. not very much). Anyone know where the gray-area ends with face masks ? Megapixie (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete serious works of art abf /talk to me/ 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mere folkloristic craft based on designs some centuries old. --Herbert Ortner (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, agree with nominator and abf. The masks are a work of art. Kameraad Pjotr 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
