Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No original description, unused, very low res, appears to be useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in use on the English Wikipedia: en:Luis von Ahn. Icewedge (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, wasn't when I looked. However, there is still no original information, so no source. Also, it appears to be a crop of this image from a blog. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably just timing. I renamed it when I copied it from WP then updated the article to link to the new name here about 5 minutes later. The original WP version has now been deleted so I can't check if there was any further information on it. However, as the Commons Move Assistant was used - and it usually pulls all the original data - then I presume you are right and it had no source data. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. In use now, but lists no original source, so can't be held here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a newer version for it Ichwan Palongengi (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you give us a link to the new version? This file is still used on en:Makassarese language. Pruneautalk 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. --Tryphon (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no description, no categories and no way of finding a use for it Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep There is a description in Hebrew. Contact Dor Posner (talk · contribs) if you want more details. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Coyau (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
it has no categories, no description, a nondescriptive name and isn't used Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep That is no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't know, where (or whether) you can use the image, it's out of scope. But I think you should give the uploader some time to add the information. --Isderion (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Pieter Kuiper. --Tryphon (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a worthless image that, unsurprisingly, isn't used and should be deleted to save space Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I cannot see any use for this. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. (Though deleting files doesn't save space. Not that we need to.) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Another useless image that should be deleted Jonjames1986 (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have a raster - copyvio? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Very suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
it's porn 98.127.50.69 08:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. That is not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Offensive 24.22.244.252 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept - no valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Fails COM:PEOPLE. An identifiable person in a private setting with no subject consent to the image being released under licence and uploaded here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This only appears a private image. It is in fact a posed image by noted artist Klashorst. Posing for your picture in an artist's studio gives no reasonable expectation of privacy. --Simonxag (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a question: why would this argument be valid for this picture and not for the many Klashorst's nude pictures that have been deleted? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a valid argument for all of them. The canard that Klashorst produces images from private settings grows more ludicrous as the number of them increases. He and his models were initially the victim of libelous attacks on the Commons and he refuses to make any response to queries from us. The compromise reached in discussions seems always to be to delete the images and justify the decision on the basis of the Commons privacy policy. Repeated wrong decisions do not become right through force of numbers. --Simonxag (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simonxag you have badly mischaracterised the precedent. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- This was not taken in a studio, but in a toilet. That is a private place, and the presence of a photographer with a camera does not make it public (otherwise it would follow that all posed pictures must be public, making a mockery of COM:PEOPLE). The subject may have approved the taking of this photograph in the private setting but there is no evidence that she has approved the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. This is logically no different from hundreds of other private images which get deleted. The only difference in practice is that a few users are quick to query precedent when this particular photographer is under discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a valid argument for all of them. The canard that Klashorst produces images from private settings grows more ludicrous as the number of them increases. He and his models were initially the victim of libelous attacks on the Commons and he refuses to make any response to queries from us. The compromise reached in discussions seems always to be to delete the images and justify the decision on the basis of the Commons privacy policy. Repeated wrong decisions do not become right through force of numbers. --Simonxag (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a question: why would this argument be valid for this picture and not for the many Klashorst's nude pictures that have been deleted? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Simonxag. Electron (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of permission of model. Klashorst images are problematic since he (despite being contacted multiple times) has declined to provide evidence of the model being of age, or of having permission from the model. Precedent has been set in multiple previous discussions, absent an explicit permission this is summarily deletable. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete BUT PLEASE let's finally be coherent for all nudes, not only Klashorst's, not only black or Asian girls, and not only urination pictures! We should delete the file any time there's a recognizable nude except if we have a proof of consent or it has clearly been taken in a public place (but beware, there may be some exceptions, for instance pictures of ethnic groups who consider nudity as normal in their culture). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Individuals of all ethic groups consider nudity normal if they are models posing nude for an artist. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and other guidelines that are being misreferred to deal only with privacy. In typical cases nudity makes an image very private indeed and requires signed consent: modeling for an artist is not one of those cases. --Simonxag (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Posing for someone doesn't mean you give him/her the right to publish the image. Even if the artist is well-known. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- No special right is needed for an artist to publish an artwork. We are protecting the subject's right to privacy. All that is relevant is the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy in this situation, which is none. I quote from the actual Commons guideline:- For our purposes, a private place can be considered a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and a public place is a place where the subject has no such expectation. --Simonxag (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Posing for someone doesn't mean you give him/her the right to publish the image. Even if the artist is well-known. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Individuals of all ethic groups consider nudity normal if they are models posing nude for an artist. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and other guidelines that are being misreferred to deal only with privacy. In typical cases nudity makes an image very private indeed and requires signed consent: modeling for an artist is not one of those cases. --Simonxag (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Tell the truth: THE MAIN reason to delete is only an obscurantism of some people... There are not others true reasons. Wiki should be free of an religion/social/etc. censorship. Electron (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete very much "per TwoWings" in many ways. However Lar's comments re the age of the model are also very relevant. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Abigor talk 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Fails COM:PEOPLE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is no pornography, it's all about art... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.147.245 (talk • contribs) 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not relevant to the stated deletion reason. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of permission of model. Klashorst images are problematic since he (despite being contacted multiple times) has declined to provide evidence of the model being of age, or of having permission from the model. Precedent has been set in multiple previous discussions, absent an explicit permission this is summarily deletable. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete BUT PLEASE let's finally be coherent for all nudes, not only Klashorst's, not only black or Asian girls, and not only urination pictures! We should delete the file any time there's a recognizable nude except if we have a proof of consent or it has clearly been taken in a public place (but beware, there may be some exceptions, for instance pictures of ethnic groups who consider nudity as normal in their culture). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Tell the truth: THE MAIN reason to delete is only an obscurantism of some people... There are not others true reasons. Wiki should be free of an religion/social/etc. censorship. Electron (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete very much "per TwoWings" in many ways. However Lar's comments re the age of the model are also very relevant. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Abigor talk 10:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Jedi order symbol, probably LucasArts copyright, can be found on the internet. Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're an admin, it's a copyvio, use the delete button :p -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sith symbol, probably LucasArts copyright, can be found on the internet. Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're an admin, it's a copyvio, use the delete button :p -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"This is another example of the human female vulva" I'm not sure we need it. Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - not a great photo, as Eusebius states, we don't need more exhibitionism here. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Shaman King and it's characters are copyrighted material. Uploader doesn't state that he/she has the rights to upload. deerstop. 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted image (screenshot of a videogame) Lucasbfr (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not used, out of scope. Advert of a private wiki. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Not used and terribly ugly :/ Masur (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ad. Not used JDavid (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --Szczepan talk 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Cannibaloki (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
wrong name --Deror avi (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 20:58, 12 January 2009 Mormegil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Memorial for the Soldiers of the Old City of Jerusalem" (Empty category or gallery: content was: '{{Delete}}' (and the only contributor was 'Deror avi')) (restore) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Has already been uploaded Tennisace101 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- under whitch name? --Isderion (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 08:32, 12 January 2009 Lycaon (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:JurgenMelzerBrisbane09.jpg" (Universally replaced by File:Melzer_Brisbane_2009.jpg. Reason was "exact, or scaled-down duplicate") (restore) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
out of Commons:Project scope. Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2843.JPG was uploaded by mistake, but SIMG2543.jpg is an artistic work made use on the Tomas_N'evergreen page to avoid to infringe the copyright of the music video (Ceimon) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted both. Clearly out of scope. The fact, that someone used the second one for illustrating the music video does not put it in scope. The second one could even be a copyvio, because this hardly qualifies for COM:DM when it can be used to illustrate the video on the TV screen, thus it is a derivative and needs to go anyway. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW from Naruto, a manga copyrighted by Masashi Kishimoto and Shueisha. see [1] --Grizzly Sigma (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://img55.onemanga.com/mangas/00000004/000100862/16.jpg){kind=link}
* 00:04, 23 January 2009 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Konoha symbol.svg" (naruto derivative ark, copyrighted logo) (restore)
Looks like a scan - source probably copyrighted Tabercil (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work, not permamenlty installed in the public place, so FOP can't apply. Herr Kriss (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Jersey Post claims copyright on all its products Man vyi (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Image used only in a vandalism article at enwiki; unlikely to be of any conceivable use Stifle (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
© http://www.ihgb.org.br/dicbio.php?id=00001 Yanguas (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
no source for astronaut part of image Mangostar (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative of File:Neil Armstrong pose.jpg which is PD. Pruneautalk 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Appears to be a joke personal image. Would be OK if it was in use on the user's page, but it is not used anywhere. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio - in use since 2006 here http://www.motorpasion.com/2006/10/26-musketier-citroen-c4 Mangostar (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio - watermark appears to be blacked out, this is a popular internet image i've seen before, see also search results on tineye http://tineye.com/search/f9ddcaa7a68c5c4a575931fd6d96693a43ad84d7 Mangostar (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that it's PD in USA. Even if, we don't know date of first publication. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, we should delete it from commons. Shalom (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I beleive it should stay. It proves a point that not only was he respected by the Polish but also the Jewish population living in Poland at that time.You can see from the side the Jozef Pilsudski profile as well as his height and built.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.54.100 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No proof for the PD claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Copied from Website - Uploader did not prove identity with fotographer Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of PD release by the author (who is not the uploader). MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license. Source states cc-by-nc-nd, not just cc-by --Disposable.Heroes (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I very much doubt that the source website is the owner of the photo's copyright; even if it is, the licence isn't acceptable on Commons. Pruneautalk 19:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a copyright violation, taken from the BBC website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/humber/travel/pages/air.shtml. Adambro (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Appears to be a copyvio, but in any event no original source is specified. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - derivative work of Wacky Races. Also:
- File:Wacky Races - The Creepy Coupe.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - The Mean Machine.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - The Crimson Haybailer.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - Convert-a-Car.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - Compact Pussycat.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - Boulder Mobile.jpg
- File:Wacky Races - Army Surplus Special.jpg
- File:Carroça a Vapor.jpg
As an aside, was I the only person who realised that if Dick Dastardly stopped trying to put his opponents out and just raced, he'd win easily? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seems a weak copyright claim, someone has made car replicas of what has been seen in a cartoon, differences in design to make it into a real 3D object are unavoidable, they have been exhibited publicly and someone has photographed them. Images of cars are not usually considered copyright violations
- We consider images of people dressed up as Mickey Mouse to be copyright violations, this really isn't any different. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. We no longer consider images of people dressed up as Mickey Mouse to be copyright violations. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan/Mike_Godwin_mail --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. These are not utilitarian cars, they have entirely artistic non-utilitarian 3D shapes which are copies of the (copyright-protected) cartoons. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Probable copyvio: illo from article written by someone from University of Arizona (see http://web.archive.org/web/20060927172315/http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/r119.htm) Hike395 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source is a university website. There is no indication that this is a free USGS image MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
---
Deleted, user request. Kameraad Pjotr 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
