Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image failed flickr review as "All Rights Reserved" within 2 months of upload in 2006. It is still licensed this way today. My question is why is it still on Commons? Leoboudv (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete per nom. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image's flickr license is 'All Rights Reserved.' It can't be used here. Note: There are at least 5 excellent replacement image's of St. Agatha's Red Tower here anyway. The failed image should just be deleted. Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Bidgee Yann (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
moved to Category:Tel Aviv 100th anniversary opening celebration --Deror avi (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: But please use Template:Badname next time. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
this logo is obviously more than 'simple geometric shapes and text' Ben.MQ (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
screenshot from proprietary game --Yekrats (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No need to nominate obvious copyvios. Use {{Copyvio}}. Rocket000 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of the scope CF COM:SCOPE. The article Benjamin Gaillard was deleted on fr:wp, this man is unknown. Wanderer999 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nom, also image says its own work by uploader who is user Bengaillard, this would say that the author is the subject of the photo so we would need the permission of the real photographer in any case. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused private picture. –Tryphon☂ 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
new upload by author --Heidi (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The other file is File:Galleria-d-Arte-Moderna-Palermo.jpg.
Keep, I'm not sure why you re-uploaded the file, but this version has a good description and is in the public domain. The new file has no meaningful description and has a more restrictive set of licenses (GFDL or cc-by-sa); we should delete that one instead. Additionally, this file is in use whereas the other one is not. –Tryphon☂ 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC) - Keep as per Tryphon. I've tagged the other, unused one as dupe. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I asked for deletion, because the other picture was uploaded by Tafkas and because I changed my user name so to have it in my gallery. Iwould like to have all fotos of Heidi zu Klampen in the gallery of (now) Kalima --Heidi (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would be much easier for you to create a user category (see Template:User category). That way, you can easily have a page with all your images, and add or remove content from it without sysop intervention. Re-uploading all your files (especially if you change the license in the process) will only create more hassle. –Tryphon☂ 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The other file has been deleted in the meantime, so we're keeping this one. –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review as "All Rights Reserved" and is completely unused on Wikipedia. Why should it be kept here in this situation Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 12:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
An image uploaded by Urban which failed flickr review with a 'Non-Commercial' restriction. This is from November 2005. How many other old failed images are still here on Commons? Leoboudv (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Image failed flickr review, it is licensed with cc-by-nc-2.0 which is not acceptable on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don’t see any such permission at [1] Mormegil (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, [2] where image is shown says © 2009 Copyright Mahskara. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal image. Not used. Yann (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - probably also a personality rights violation of a non-notable person. --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a personal rights violation, I have the person's consent to use the image. I was planning on using it for my sandbox.--Ricardothe3rd (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- That may be OK then, if it is used -- but they will typically be deleted once not in use on personal pages. One other note -- privacy rights are completely different than personality rights; this is in no way a violation of personality rights (which typically govern usage in certain commercial contexts, such as advertising), but privacy rights are a completely different matter (which is what I assume Turelio was actually referring to). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- To avoid conflict of personality right, we should ask to the subject if she is in favor of publishing her photo.--Kwj2772 (msg) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per COM:PEOPLE, Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. This photo is not in a public setting so without consent of the subject it should be deleted. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, unused private picture. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to be "own work", especially since there's a logo prominently on the image Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Professional shot. First upload by this user. I doubt own work. Yann (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The photo appears here and the homepage has a copyright sign. Hekerui (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom and Hekerui, website that contains photos does say © 2006 SesacLatina.com.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license information: source is [3] --> click on the image --> click on the icon for download --> there ist says Please note, that any use for commercial purposes is forbidden. -El Grafo (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, source of image forbids use for commercial purposes this is not allowed on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Info to get the information mentioned above, you need to have Javascript enabled - otherwise your Browser will just show the picture. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Question there ist at least one other file from that website on Commons. Does that qualify for speedy deletion or should I put it here for discussion as well? --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
converted by me to rfd from a cv-speedy by EvaK --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Original speedy-rationale (copied from image description page) was: "Taken from http://www.tiermotive.de/tieralbum/4images/details.php?image_id=2639, copyrighted material, no free license, cf. imprint http://www.tiermotive.de/tieralbum/4images/index.php?template=impressum (only for noncommercial, private reuse) --Eva K. is evil 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)"
- First comment to original speedy by Polarsys (copied from image description page) was:
- There is a permission template (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Tiermotive), whenever a clear statement is needed. So please use a regular request for deletion instead. --Polarlys (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The source website states that the image is by immortal, exactly one of those two users of the source website for whose images the permission was granted, as shown in the permission tag on the image page.--Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't the granting of permission like this be handled through the OTRS system? There is no way to determine the validity of the text on the user page referenced. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- True, that would be the best way, as of yet. But the way it was done in this case was the common way in the beginnings of Commons and Wikipedia. In addition, it's rather unlikely that someone takes the pain to program a special template for images from one source and would publish a - hypothetically - faked email permission. --Túrelio (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. No possible use. Yann (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Questionable author and usage. --RichN (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation [4]. –Tryphon☂ 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/4697262161547027.JPG){kind=link}
Soy el autor de esta obra derivada. Subida imagen derivada de mejor calidad (Cruz de Peñalba.svg) --FCPB (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per author's request. Unused, except in the author's signature, and a replacement exists. –Tryphon☂ 14:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
