Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The map has errors (Russia and Whiterussia) and is not in use. There is an alternative SVG-version. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Exact duplicate, other version has better name. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, since the above was an automatically-generated comment: there are two versions which are exact duplicates. The one nominated for deletion has a more ambiguous, less descriptive name than the other. Regarding the version to be deleted, I've added all its categories to the other, preferred version; all the other information is already present. I have also eliminated all uses of the version to be deleted (the only ones were in a gallery on my Wikipedia user page and in a Commons gallery I've made). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 13:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Because it is copywritten by TNA Wrestling. --Wrestlinglover (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use
This is my work, re: File:Central_Obesity_008.jpg not the uploaders. FatM1ke (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted as clear-cut copyvio from File:Central_Obesity_008.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
delete, belongs to non-encyclopedic article on nl.wiki --Simeon87 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. non-free screenshot Kwj2772 (msg) 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Book scan Smooth_O (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Derivitive; purpose of photo is to reproduce section modern of commercial advertising artwork, not permanently installed. --Infrogmation (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio Sv1xv (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete That was an understatement. File:Mallu Magalhães.jpg by the same uploader has a copyright watermark. Probably all this uploaders contributions should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It says nowhere on Flickr that the uploader took this picture, so license is not valid. Rosenzweig δ 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Flickr even claims it was "Taken on May 10, 2009" (Depicted died in 1991). --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: Flickr washing
Same as previous Freddie Mercury image: invalid license, it says nowhere on Flickr that the uploader is the creator. Rosenzweig δ 15:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader also added restriction "Esta imagen solo puede ser usada en alguna pagina perteneciente a Wikimedia." that is not allowed.--Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Image also found here. --Túrelio (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: Flickr washing
Third Mercury picture with bogus license. Rosenzweig δ 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete Copyvios. Sv1xv (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader seems to be identical with Flickr account. As of Flickr, image claimed to be "Taken on May 11, 2009" (depicted died in 1991). --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Image also found here.--Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: Flickr washing
No Source, non descriptive description and no author, says me mabye.. --Ltshears (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's image description "haha"; Source="somewhere". User used it for vandalism on en:Wikipedia; has been blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No realistic educational use could be expected with this logo, and not used anywhere on any of the projects. 208.81.184.4 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Leafnode 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work" - see TinEye report here Tabercil (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete Found on three other web sites [1]. Sv1xv (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
deleted -- Unfortunately I couldn't find some of the images on tineye so I gave up... Next time - a simple {{Copyvio}} would do. Yuval Y § Chat § 11:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wrong name, this church is in Řevničov (see File:Revnicov-church.jpg) --User:Kriplozoik
Deleted as Duplicate of or superseded by File:Revnicov-church.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete out of COM:SCOPE; as of image content and description, this might even be promotional/spam. Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete It is bobscene and should be deleted immediately. 76.95.186.208 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clearly out of scope and likely promotional content per Túrelio. -- Editor at Large • talk 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 120x160 px MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Tiny resolution too. --Korman (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Genaral Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi was in power in 1966. It's not possible that the uploader is old enough (at least 60, more likely 70+) to be the photographer, but other facts speak against it: small size, no exif data (from a scanner), only few people would ever have had the chance to take this image etc. Samulili (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep
- Good thing you noticed that tag. However, 1966 was only 42 years ago. His politically significant period was completely in the 1960s. Samulili (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete ... don't know what I was thinking. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good thing you noticed that tag. However, 1966 was only 42 years ago. His politically significant period was completely in the 1960s. Samulili (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong file name-mountain is Zelnarica and now replaced with another file. --romanm (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dupe. Coyau (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Halsman portrait of Salvador Dali, see here. Martin H. (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW Coyau (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No realistic educational use could be expected with this webpage screenshot, and not used anywhere on any of the projects. 208.81.184.4 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope Coyau (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No realistic educational use could be expected with this webpage screenshot, and not used anywhere on any of the projects. 208.81.184.4 20:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope Coyau (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Peterson was arrested by Illinois authorities; his mugshot would not be the work of the Federal government —teb728 t c 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, not Federal work as tagged, no evidence it is free licensed for any other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominating as an unneeded image. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominating as an unneeded image. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
May also should get deleted:
- E60 bmw m5.jpg
- E60 bmw m5 ring taxi.jpg
- Audi r8 spoiler.jpg
- Ceramic brakes.jpg
- White m5 1.jpg
- Silver audi r8.jpg
I don't think that this is the uploaders own work All his other files may also should get deleted. Have a look at Audi r8.jpg and This and Silver audi r8.jpg and This image. The author just cut the watermark off and reuploaded the file. Thereby I think that the uploaders other images have gobne the same way.
D-Kuru (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and block user. File:White m5 1.jpg still has the source in the metadata. "Surprisingly" it's the same source as the R8 image. --Denniss (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio Coyau (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence uploader holds the copyright to this logo. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission
No evidence uploader holds the copyright to this logo. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This image does not have a clear source or the source does not indicate if it is copyright free. The permission says "Not for reproduction"...but isn't this a reproduction? What does the community think? Leoboudv (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not only does it have a non free restriction on reproduction, it seems to have been yoinked from a website with a clear copyright notice on the front page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Commons already has 3 good images of this porn actress here We really don't need her signature. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Subject of photo respectfully requests deletion GreyWyvern (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I am the original uploader of this photo, BTW. It is only linked from a userpage at the ja wikipedia. Regards.
- Shoot, forgot to log in before posting the above :| GreyWyvern (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Commons has a better free licensed photo of the subject at File:Robert j sawyer in 2005.jpg used to illustrate the articles on the author in multiple Wikipedias. Possibly this can be used on the ja:Wikipedia as well? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. COM:PEOPLE or just courtesy. Samulili (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not a work of the US Federal Government, as clearly stated in the image description. Not every image in Library of Congress is in public domain, and this image is one of the copyrighted kind. Grebenkov (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
According to [2] The Russian Information Agency "Novosti" has provided the photos on behalf of The Moscow Times, which does not mean that Photographs have been generously donated to the Library of Congress by The Moscow Times as it stated in the description of the image. --RedAndr (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Photoprints were donated by to the LOC, but, I couldn't find any info about copyright status looking at Online exhibit front page and related pages. The current copyright tag is certainly not correct; not a work of the US Federal Government, so not PD-USGov as tagged. Delete unless shown to be free licensed for some other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Samulili (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Shapes of rubber stamps
[edit]- File:Taisetsumaru-Stump-1.jpg
- File:Taisetsumaru-Stump-2.jpg
- File:Matsuda-Stn-Stump.jpg
- File:Ome-stn-Stump.jpg
- File:Omiya-Stn-Stump-Shinkansen.jpg
Fairuse. They are copyrighted shapes, not simple enough to be copyright-ineligible. --Vantey (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unless originals shown to be PD or free licensed; incorrect tag. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is still in copyright (until 70 years after Knud Fabricius's death). The front page illustration can't be found in the original edition by the father (see http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=fabricius%20illustreret) and it is very likely that the son, Knud, drew it --Nillerdk (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a copyright violation (see reason given above). Nillerdk (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Either that or author unknown? --MGA73 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- No unknown author, because the work is very-very based on illustrations (all of same style) and it must be assumed that the author of the book is the author of the illustrations. Nillerdk (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Illustration is not on the original so it is not by da:Adam Kristoffer Fabricius. We must asume it is made by the son (da:Knud Fabricius (13. august 1875- 30. juni 1967)) and therefore it is not free yet. --MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MGA73: Copyright violation: Image is not free yet and there is no permission
File:Artibeus sp. Costa Rica.jpg have deleted shizhao (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Image has been changed since then, it does not include the deleted picture any more. –Leptictidium (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. (Now I am going to delete the bad revisions and fix the description page.) Mormegil (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Per File talk:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif, reviewers view the stone to be a 3D object, hence, the photographer has copyright over the photo. No permission for release into public domain or an appropriate license was given. Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a easy one. Is it 2D or 3D? Well a painting is 3D if you look very careful and uses a microscope and even a piece of paper is. But we choose say it is 2D. This is a very thick "piece of paper" and therefore it is harder to say that it is 2D. But what if the picture was painted on a wall would it still be 2D? To take the picture of the rune stone you need to use light and choose the right angle to get a good picture but if you wants to take a picture of a painting or a drawing you also need to turn on the light and remember to "turn the right side up". The rune stone only has one "good side" unlike other sculptures. All good arguments for "Keep" but we have Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet saying that even coins are 3D so therefore the rune stone should also be considered 3D. With no knowledge of the author we sadly can't keep the picture. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Photograph of an old coin section of When to use the PD-Art tag does not apply here, as the coins in question contain reliefs which are by definition 3D sculptures. A similar 3D representation of George Washington still decorates the US quarter -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my view you could also put a coin on a scanner and therefore you could argue that pictures of a coin are no different than pictures of pages from a book or paintings. But there has to be a line somewhere. I read previous comment as an argument that the coin is 3D because of the relief and not because the coin itself is thicker than paper. So if a coin had no relief but only writing/drawing/paining then it would be 2D? If so the question is how thick letters may be before they changes from 2D to 3D. What about a book written in en:Braille? There is no doubt that the letters on the rune stone are deeper than the relief on a coin so even if I would like the image to be free I still need better arguments. --MGA73 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Photograph of an old coin section of When to use the PD-Art tag does not apply here, as the coins in question contain reliefs which are by definition 3D sculptures. A similar 3D representation of George Washington still decorates the US quarter -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per, my rationale here. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 09:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The Kensington Runestone in itself is a 3D object, but it is not the subject of the picture. What is pictured is one 2D facet of the stone - containing a manuscript. It would be trivial to place the facet on a scanner bed (assuming the weight of the stone did not break the glass). Trivial scanning would be helped by the fact that the facet also heppens to be almost rectangular, although this is not a requirement of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I do not know about American law, but the inscription itself is also 3D in the sense that one could make a cast of the text; it is not painted. Rather similar to a coin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete See discussion at Commons_talk:PD_files#File:Kensington_Runestone_Kens3.gif. We don't allow pictures of coins featuring relief under PD-Art/PD-scan, and it would be inconsistent to not delete a tablet featuring even deeper relief. It is also a photo extending beyond the edges of the tablet, and features a large crack that - whether or not created by the artist - is creatively captured by the photographer. These are the last nail in the coffin. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Dcoetzee MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
To cite from the discussion page: "Мистификация (may be romanised mistifikatsia) is the Russian word for 'hoax'". There is no source provided for the animation and no information on where, when, who etc. Slomox (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
deleted, by deletion request. When it's only a 'hoax' and not really a ball lightning, then it's out of project scope. --Ra'ike T C 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No evidence uploader holds the copyright to this logo. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence uploader holds the copyright to this logo. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hier der Grund. Redundant mit Category:Die Toten Hosen und der dortigen Galerie und der Untercategory D. Campino ist seit 1982 Sänger, Frontmann und Texter der Band Die Toten Hosen.--Saginet55 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept: Please list this question at Commons:Categories for discussion. --GeorgHH • talk 08:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Logo, Fair use Kyro (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- {{PD-textlogo}}, but a better copy could be made. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment The svg version of en.wiki is considered as fair use in en.wikipedia. If PD-textlogo applies, the image should be replaced by svg version. To me it looks like simple typography. -- Meisam (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
kept as {{PD-textlogo}} --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Taken in 1940, no author, no way to derive a PD status. Apparently acquired by the Imperial War Museum, but no copyright info is provided. Given the subject, I doubt it could be under Crown Copyright, I think IWM doesn't know about copyright status either. Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- If the author is unknown, I guess the copyright expires next year (70 years after publication)... Nillerdk (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1st of january 2011, actually. Is it valid for any source country? --Eusebius (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep if even the government who took this photo has forgotten who has taken it, then it must be public domain. -Nard the Bard 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- They don't know, but you do remember who took the picture? --Eusebius (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is PD.--Trixt (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by Francoiscoen
[edit]- File:Photo DB1- ©Romain Osi.jpg
- File:D Bertinotti- ©Romain Osi.jpg
- File:Dominique Bertinotti ©Romain Osi.jpg
The image names imply that the photographer is Romain Osi and not the uploader. No permission. Samulili (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment You sure Romain Osi is not the uploader? Your making a big assumption. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, that's a natural assumption as the uploader's name isn't the same as the photographer's. As is, François Coen belongs to the PR office of Dominique Bertinotti, the subject on those pictures. We have to make sure Romain Osi transferred his copyright when he sold his pictures; I will ask for an OTRS ticket. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. A clarification via OTRS is needed.--Trixt (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)