Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/14

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive June 14th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of User:Arilang1234

[edit]

I believe that the files listed above uploaded by User:Arilang1234 are all copyviolations as they are taken directly from a copyrighted website such as Flags of the World (abbreviated above as FOTW), for which licensing is incompatible with Commons (ref. [16]); or as a cropped screenshot of another website without any other original input from the uploader. Although the files seems to have been uploaded onto flickr tagged with cc-by-sa, the files themselves were copyrighted and thus I think does not meet flickr's nor Commons' licensing as an original or derivative work, and therefore should be deleted from the Commons database. --Shibo77 06:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cover_Mysterio_ROLL_WIT_IT_blue(2).jpg

[edit]

Blatant Copyvio - album cover Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete--Motopark (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Copyvio (music album cover) Sv1xv (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Samuel_Preston_-_front.jpg

[edit]

This image is copyrighted...from a web site if you look at the source. Its not a flickr image. Leoboudv (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Clearly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Švendubrė

[edit]

Mistake creating category page. --Andrius Vanagas (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Deletion of empty gallery requested in good faith by creator User:Andrius.v. Sv1xv (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Caricatures of Sarah Palin.jpg

[edit]

Category:Caricatures of Sarah Palin was only created to make it more difficult to find the only image it contains. See also Category talk:Caricatures of Sarah Palin. --Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many more deletion requests is Pieter Kuiper going to open? Drork (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete contains only 1 image. Multichill (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of categories that include only one image. A person who looks for images of Mrs. Palin doesn't look for caricatures of her and vice versa. There is a huge difference between a portrait and a caricature, and this difference should be reflected in categorization. Drork (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between passport photos, glamour photos, paintings, drawings, posters, friendly caricatures and critical caricatures are very gradual; no need for every different genre unless there is a bunch of them. The furthest outlyer would be an impersonator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak  Keep, providing it is a subcategory of Category:Sarah Palin (I did that; but will change my opinion to delete if it is undone.) It is not true that no one looking for Sarah Palin would only want photos and not caricatures or vice versa; it is quite possible to be interested in both. On the other hand, the Sarah Palin category is huge, with over 100 images. Any subcategorization of it is welcome, and separating drawings from photos is clear. Pieter stated that he doesn't think the category will grow as Palin lost the VP election, however I don't think that's necessary the case, Palin is still a well known figure, she had a minor scandal due to being joked about by David Letterman just last week.--GRuban (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I just comment that any categorization is fuzzy. Arguing that a category should not be opened because its limits are fuzzy is a claim against any categorization. Drork (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Adambro (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Terminator1984plakat.jpg

[edit]

fair use --Filip em (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, obvious copyright violation Infrogmation (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Damage-bit-1.JPG

[edit]

Commons is not a personal repository (changed from speedy nominated by User:WayneRay) MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per MGA73. Sv1xv (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eric_krumins.jpg

[edit]

out of COM:SCOPE; unused image of a minor. Túrelio (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment en:Eric Krumins is 29 now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BenjaminGalistan.jpg

[edit]

out of COM:SCOPE; unused image of probably non-notable person, likely the uploader himself, who never answered to my 4 months old question about the intended use of this image. Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fernando_torress.jpg

[edit]

out of COM:SCOPE; unused image of non-notable person. Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cherry_Man.jpg

[edit]

out of COM:SCOPE. unused image of a child (girl?) with a somewhat strange description. Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Amphetamin_Pulver.jpg

[edit]

It is a variation of CocaineHydrochloridePowder.jpg, and it has bad name, suggesting it's amphetamine in the picture, when it is cocaine, according to source. Catz (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a crop of File:CocaineHydrochloridePowder.jpg and could be deleted of dupe. I've already removed the 5 (!) instances where this image was used to show amphetamine. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Túrelio Yann (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Congress building Nanking.jpg

[edit]

Obviously the picture is not the original photo taken in 1947. It seems a oil painting from a magazine, and the uploader hasn't provide the source of the picture, so we cannot judge whether it's in the public domain --1j1z2 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well it seems to be the photo taken in 1947, definitely not an oil painting. With many "colour" photos in that era, colour is sometimes added later to a photo that was originally black and white. Nat (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It was very common in the first half of the 20th century to have photos taken in black and white, with colors added by hand for mass printing. Postcards were the most common use of this technique, and the image certainly has the distinctive look of postcards of that era (see File:75-Paris-Tour Eiffel-vers 1910.JPG or File:BananasPortNewOrleansCard.jpg as sample of the many examples of this technique in the period). I am illiterate in Chinese so I can't read the caption, but if the deletion request is based only on the color, I'd suggest keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - hand colored photograph in the style of the period. --Latebird (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – as below. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Constitution phase ROC.jpg

[edit]

Obviously the picture is not the original photo taken in 1946. It seems a oil painting from a magazine, and the uploader hasn't provide the source of the picture, so we cannot judge whether it's in the public domain --1j1z2 (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well it seems to be the photo taken in 1946, definitely not an oil painting. With many "colour" photos in that era, colour is sometimes added later to a photo that was originally black and white. Nat (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This photo, uploaded by me, was actually taken in December 31, 1946 and firstly published in the January 2nd, 1947. This picture shows the beginning of the Democratic Era for Republic of China and is very important in Chinese history, so the government bulletin added the color when they published it. The color was added when it was firstly published that time, not by me. It is surely in public domain, under PD-Taiwan. Amphylite (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The process of adding "false color" when printing photographs originally taken in black and white was fairly common in the era. Nothing surprising, and certianly not a oil painting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - hand colored photograph in the style of the period. --Latebird (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – per Infrogmation; the practice of colouring photographs was not rare. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kira_Miró_-_20minutos_(A).jpg

[edit]

Source page does not indicate it's a phote made by 20minutos.es. Also the image is using the wrong license, should be cc-by-sa-2.1-es Denniss (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep: Please, read carefully the Terms of License 

1.- Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos publicados por 20minutos procedentes de los terceros siguientes:
Textos, gráficos, informaciones e imágenes que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a Agencias, Reuters, Efe,
Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI, J.M. Nieto o Jorge París.

It says that only authors listed above, are not agree with CC-BY-SA. This photo is not atributed to someone in this list, thats why 20minutos post the image with CC-BY-SA. --Rizome (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Photo is not credited to any outside source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is not credited at all thus at best we can only assume it's made by 20minutos. They usually credit all their own images. --Denniss (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE1: 20minutos asserts that the CC-BY-SA is not aplied ONLY for documents atributed to: Agencias, Reuters, Efe, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI, J.M. Nieto o Jorge París. If the author is not consigned, or it is consigned but he doesn't appears in the list above, 20minutos can apply the CC-BY-SA license. --Rizome (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – in accordance with Rizome. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Conchita_martinez_20minutos.jpg

[edit]

Not from 20minutos.es, see http://www.sporting-heroes.net/tennis-heroes/displayhero.asp?HeroID=1395. Photo/Foto: Stuart Franklin, the image on 20minutos.es is user provided content, uploaded their against the rules of http://www.20minutos.es/aviso_legal/ #10. Martin H. (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tower of the SUN Front.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art.

Artist:Tarō Okamoto(1911-1996).
Place:Osaka,Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Freedom of panorama in Japan for statues is limited to non-commercial use only. Thus the photograph is not permitted according to the Commons' copyright policy. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MyPhotoOsaka0030.JPG

[edit]

Copyright violation of art.

Artist:Tarō Okamoto(1911-1996).
Place:Osaka,Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Freedom of panorama in Japan for statues is limited to non-commercial use only. Thus the photograph is not permitted according to the Commons' copyright policy. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:TaiyoNoTo behind.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art.

Artist:Tarō Okamoto(1911-1996).
Place:Osaka,Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Freedom of panorama in Japan for statues is limited to non-commercial use only. Thus the photograph is not permitted according to the Commons' copyright policy. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tower of the sun back.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art.

Artist:Tarō Okamoto(1911-1996).
Place:Osaka,Japan.
Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Freedom of panorama in Japan for statues is limited to non-commercial use only. Thus the photograph is not permitted according to the Commons' copyright policy. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ICJ-CJI hearing 2.jpg

[edit]

"Public hearings of the International Court of Justice (March 2006). Photograph: Jeroen Bouman - Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved." per link at ICJ website. Metadata clearly says "All rights reserved". --Infrogmation (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The long quote in the information box says: "free of copyright". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think it would be great if this potentially useful image can be shown to be free licensed. Both the website source and the metadata, however, clearly say it is "all rights reserved". Where does the text saying "Free of copyright" come from? I have not been able to find it at the ICJ website. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Both the source website and metadata says ”all rights reserved”. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ICJ - CJI seal.jpg

[edit]

Foto: www.JeroenBouman.com "Photograph: Jeroen Bouman - Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved" [17] [18]--Infrogmation (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source website says ”all rights reserved”. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Public hearing at the ICJ.jpg

[edit]

Photograph: Jeroen Bouman - Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved. [19] [20] Infrogmation (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source website says ”all rights reserved”. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Inaugural session of the International Court of Justice.jpg

[edit]

"All rights reserved" [21]. Note: Other images in Category:ICJ-CJI may warrent checking as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source website says ”all rights reserved”. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Starr_080117-1845_Pisum_sativum.jpg

[edit]

Photo of copyrighted work (the photo on the front of the packet). Jolly Janner (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kim_Kallstrom_portrait.jpg

[edit]

wrong licence on flickr Kyro (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – in the absence of adequate explanation and the free status of the image. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Polska-ww1-nation.png

[edit]

Map created by a single purpose account (branching out now) that is not used anywhere simply because it is dubious. Poland didn't exist on the map of Europe in 1912 so how could it made "territorial demands". Everything here is a speculative original research, if not a figment of its autor's imagination (as with the numbers and languages, i.e. Goralian, simply non existing). Poeticbent talk 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is an accurate map and not dubious. The source is trusted and the map combine historical and modern facts like goralian people [22] which at the time of the source population stats where counted to polish people. The title of the map says "the polish nation" not the polish state. and the territorial demand are researchabel in historical sources and where also present at the entente powers before the second polish republic was established officially. For me it seems Poeticbent just want to hide facts disturbing the propaganda collection of maps of polish users showing a peacefull poland which only collect its "majorites" in the ukraine or belarus. what by the way is the reason why POW users remove it from articles like pro-polish-propagandist piotrus... and because you use the same words i come to the conclusion you are possibly the same kind of polish user.

i can understand, that polish users only accept sources by polish origin deliver the result of a polish majority in the vilna reagion to claim it for poland, and you may cant image you fell into a construct of propangandism but check this polish original source [23] and stop talking about author´s imagination... i see everything not fits in your imagination of the past have to be imagination from others.

For a neutral observer it could, if there is any, only be a problem of the title. (84.189.78.161 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Kept. Regardless of it's accuracy, it's currently in use on several projects.[24] If there's concerns regarding original research and all that, sort it out on the local projects which are using this image and have policies against that. Then, if no longer used, it may be out of our project scope. (Of course, renaming is always possible too.) Rocket000 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Polska-ww1-nation.png

[edit]

Unsourced, use of confusing, improper terms, possible agenda pushing

Map is theoretically based on this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polska1912.jpg. Nonetheless it is using it very arbitrary. First of all 20-50% scope to indicate territories with large Polish minority is chosen very arbitrary, second of all even this isn't reflected properly on the map. For example city of Vilnius and Trakai county on the base map have over 20% of Polish population, yet they aren't marked in any way on the map in question. What's more the original map is based on 1897 Russian census, which deliberately was diminishing number of Polish people on territories of today's Lithuania and Belarus. The next Russian census of 1909 (so called spisok zémstv) gave much different numbers (for example in Vilnius county the number of Poles raised from 17,8% to 47%). German census made during the war in 1916 also portrayed much different demographic situation, the same goes with post war Polish and Lithuanian censuses. Also the map is using wrongly term "referendum" instead of plebiscite, and alleged Polish claims does not have any historical basis (Poland was claiming in the west lands with undoubetly Polish majority, not prepartition borders of PLC as the map suggest) Marcelus (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: Thank you, I will do that then Marcelus (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: for now, per Nat, COM:INUSE. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Body images

[edit]

For various reasons I've decided to restrict the exhibition of these images of myself to special use only. I've linked the derivatives of the first image to File talk:Human male body front anterior.png explaining the situation. That's a separate page, so it shouldn't be affected by deleting the images and their pages. The derivatives (that is File:Human anatomy.jpg and translations) may still be used, though. The other two images have no significant use in other places. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, in situations like this, I can sympathize with the author/subject and try not to let the irrevocability of whatever license or even educational value to some degree get in the way of understanding on a human level. Many people simply do not think about the full implications of uploading an image to the world. If this image wasn't so widespread (there's more derivatives than what you listed), I would be more willing to delete. It's a very useful and needed image. File talk:Human male body front anterior.png doesn't explain anything, it just mentions a restriction which is against Commons policy (and meaningless because there's no copyright behind it). So I vote delete for that page and the (very) scaled-down duplicates, and keep for the rest. I'm not sure of the purpose here since full size copies (e.g. File:Human anatomy.jpg) would still be allowed and are under licenses which allow derivatives... that doesn't really make sense. Rocket000 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had the feeling that these image essentially had finished their function as sources to make derivatives, but perhaps they may still be very useful. And actually, the presence itself of the images in Commons doesn't bother me - it's rather about their reception; The few comments I've gotten on the original image have so far been rather derogatory, but then, it is possible that I've only heard from the perhaps small minority that find it indecent. So if it turns out that there actually is general consensus that the images seriously contribute to the project, then I'll accept keeping them. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leve the image online. It is simply a man.

Kept. Pruneautalk 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Anton_Valentinov_Petrov.jpg

[edit]

"public and can be copied and distributed", if this is the translation of the bulgarian text, does not necessarily include modifications/derivative works. Martin H. (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it's more wordy, correct and free of a permission than almost anything else you can ever see on the websites of our authorities. :) For your comfort, I sent an email for explicit permission. →Spiritia 09:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My request is not implausibly, take a look at the bulgarian presidency website which is free for commercial use and licensed under Creative Commons ... but Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic (cc-by-ND-2.5-bg). Sadly the nonderivative restriction is often on government websites, not only in Bulgaria. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Leopoldo_Calvo-Sotelo_2.jpg

[edit]

Origianlly from http://www.20minutos.es/galeria/4203/0/2/ with the caption Foto:20minutos.es, but the website http://www.casareal.es/noticias/news/2957-ides-idweb.html says Foto: EFE. Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 14:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monarchies of the world.png

[edit]

This image is a COPY of an image already on the commons and this version is inaccurate unlike the orgininal one which is accurate. Original image is file:World Monarchies.png --99.226.115.81 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Not used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Buy on turbosquid optical.jpg

[edit]

Filename has promotional component, inappropriate for the Commons. Image also contains embedded link (though this could be cropped if the image is kept). --Mindmatrix (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a version without the advertising at File:Optical fiber cable.jpg.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a duplicate of File:Optical fiber cable.jpg Lijealso (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't File:Optical fiber cable.jpg be licensed as PD-user? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The original isn't PD. Rocket000 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be so licensed, because it is a derivative work of an image that was relased under GFDL and CC by SA.--Srleffler (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was uder the impression that the original work had been released in the PD. Must have been hallucinating. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around, Lijealso: the file you linked to is a derivative work of the image we are discussing. I took the image and removed the inappropriate promotional content. The original image can now be deleted, as it is not suitable for use in Wikipedia, etc.--Srleffler (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Buy on turbosquid.jpg

[edit]

Filename has promotional component, inappropriate for the Commons. Image also contains embedded link (though this could be cropped if the image is kept). --Mindmatrix (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. 07:55, 3 August 2009 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Buy on turbosquid.jpg" ‎ (Promotional content) Rocket000 (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Turbosquid cable master COAX.jpg

[edit]

Filename has promotional component, inappropriate for the Commons. Image also contains embedded link (though this could be cropped if the image is kept). --Mindmatrix (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Remove the watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. 07:55, 3 August 2009 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Turbosquid cable master COAX.jpg" ‎ (Promotional content) Rocket000 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Buy on turbosquid optical break out.jpg

[edit]

Filename has promotional component, inappropriate for the Commons. Image also contains embedded link (though this could be cropped if the image is kept). --Mindmatrix (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just remove the watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a version without the watermark at File:Optical breakout cable.jpg.--Srleffler (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. 07:55, 3 August 2009 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Buy on turbosquid optical break out.jpg" ‎ (Promotional content) Rocket000 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Louis_Lobbes.jpg

[edit]

This picture is copied from a book, according to the uploader as said on [25]. This is thus not GFDL. The image is not used anymore. Anoko (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneautalk 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gulzarilal_Nanda.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded from hi.wikipedia, hi.wikipedia seems not to have any trustable copyright policy (they use images from bbc or other media on their mainpage without indicating fair use), the image is uploaded on hi.wikipedia w:hi:चित्र:Gulzarilal Nanda.jpg with the comment: "from english wikipedia". w:en:File:Gulzarilal_Nanda.jpg was deleted per PUI. The author here is obviously wrong, the license is questionabe. Martin H. (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete per nom. The deleted en:Wikipedia page from which the hi:Wikipedia originated, noted the source as [26]. No evidence of free license nor attribution to original source seen there. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is it possible that this photograph was published before 1949? Then it would be in the public domain. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This could be public domain, but we need a date. The PD-because reason "Indian Government photograph" may be implying that's it's a government work and older than 60 years. The fact that it's a government work isn't too important here because it's a photograph (60 years from pub. applies to non-government photos as well). But without a valid source or author, we can't just guess. Rocket000 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Its resourced now, but the now claimed public domain status is also questionable. No source that Government photographs from the Indian government are public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No evidence that this is from prior io 1947. Hekerui (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gulzarilal Nanda.jpg

[edit]

Scan of a news image, no evidence that the uploader owns the rights to this image, this was likely taken around 1965 so it doesn't qualify under PD-India either. I also don't know if this is the image discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gulzarilal Nanda.jpg, if it is then it can be speedily deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 05:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Not the same image, but still a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ladislao_Kubala_20minutos.jpg

[edit]

Photo from EPA (European Pressphoto Agency), see http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,grossbild-184259-196782,00.html. Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Archive image from 1971; 20 minutos probably had this from a Spanish source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The author is not indicated in http://www.epa.eu/, the database is searchable ( Kubala ). Like every photo agency: They never sell images, they only license it with nontransferable licenses. listas.20minutos.es is user provided content maybe. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The website listas.20minutos.es is user provided. According with its terms of use (section 10, files uploaded by users, in Spanish), "the user who uploads the files states and guarantees that he is the legitimate copyright holder". Obviously this is not the case of this gallery of sportsmen collected from somewhere else. --V.Riullop (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image was clearly introduced in 20minutos without having the (copy)right to do it. --ecelan (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baychimo.jpg

[edit]

date photo is 1931; how do we know the photographer is dead for at least 70 years? Robotje (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I changed the license to {{PD-Canada}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aldus Books London doesn't look very Canadian to me. Multichill (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This ship got stuck in the arctic ice north of Canada. That is where the photo was made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg

[edit]

Possibly not PD due to the fact that the entire Coat of Arms was updated in 1957 and in 1994. The shield's colour seems to have been updated in 1957 and the shield's dimensions were updated in 1994. --Nat (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I think the substantial updates were to the other parts of the coat of arms. See http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/coatArmsCanada.htm. Color change and new dimensions (at least for simple shapes like shields) usually do not attract new copyright protection. Rocket000 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but derivative works are subject to the original term of copyright, are they not? I mean that's why they passed the w:Mickey Mouse Protection Act, because if the first Mickey Mouse cartoon went PD, then Mickey himself would be PD, even though today's Mickey Mouse is a derivative of the original. Eleland (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-trivial derivatives always attract new copyright protection regardless of the copyright status of the original. If the original is public domain, the derivative can be licensed any way one wishes. There is no copyright they can even be subject to. The question is, is this a derivative of the original or the new work (which logically means both)? Rocket000 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Keep The maple leafs are described as "proper" (see [27]), so they can be of any green, yellow, red or brown shade. Other changes after 1921 don't affect the shield but elements of the full achievement outside the shield (crown, motto). Sv1xv (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be covered under Canadian Copyright Law. And this wikipedia:en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg would set presidence. According to the Wikipedia version of this image, the licensing section of the page states: "The present design of the arms of Canada was drawn by Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, office of the Governor General of Canada, and faithfully depicts the arms described in the words of the Royal Proclamation dated November 21, 1921. The present design was approved in 1994. This image is copyright © 1994, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada [28] and is held under Canadian Crown Copyright. In addition, the Trade Marks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use [29]. To obtain permission to use the arms of Canada commercially, see the previous link.". As such, this image should be deleted on the basis that this image is still under Crown Copyright and therefore any use of this image must be used under a fair use rationale which is not allowed on Commons. Nat (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't mix copyright issues with usage restrictions (trademark or other). The latter are covered by {{Insignia}} and do not affect the copyright status. As such the copy on Commons should be deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not mixing the two up. I'm am just merely pointing out that the exact same image on wikipedia is listed with a {{Non-free symbol}} and not a PD symbol. Nat (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You do, when you refer to the Trade Marks Act. In Wikipedia there is a combination template {{Non-free symbol}} which works for non-free flags and other insignia, that't why they list the trademark restriction. This does not apply here, as all images on Commons must be free in terms of copyright only, otherwise they are not acceptable at all. Sv1xv (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not. It states very clearly in the wikipedia version of this image: "This image is copyright © 1994, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and is held under Canadian Crown Copyright.". Nat (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please try to understand, I don't refer to the 1994 copyright. I just try to keep deletion requests clear of trademark issues. I'll let some other admin decide if there is a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Can someone please come to a conclusion about this file? The deletion notice has been up for three months now, and has been causing confusion at Wikipedia, where the file is used quite prevalently. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the shield dimensions are the main problem, I will just fix it to the 1957 specs now and it should be go to go. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1957 shield up now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

With the 1957 version of the shield up, I deleted the other reversions. Now just waiting for this to close. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the present version being unquestionably in the public domain, I close this request as kept. Rama (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/06/14&oldid=32788127"