Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
I'm not really sure of the usefulness of this page is. The few Transwiki: pages created because of this system are either deleted or redirected to a real namespace. We should not be using this procedure most of the time (and I don't think anyone does anymore). According to the meta page: If the import feature is enabled between the originating and remote wiki (and you have access to the restricted feature), see Help:Import. Otherwise, use this procedure to transwiki the page. Well, most transwikis come from en.wp and should only be transferred by importing (same with meta and de.wp). And that creates it's own log. Usually all we use that for is templates since the history of a list of images (i.e. galleries) isn't really important nor conveniently imported (because they're normally a small part of a larger article or need most language specific links/text removed). Files have their own system (although I wish more people would import the actual history instead of having a bot reproduce it somewhere and clutter the page). I guess this still could be used for logging transwikis from projects that don't have import set up yet, but why? What's wrong with saying where something came from in the edit summary? Same result. A link to a deleted page that is completely useless to most people. Rocket000 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The pages noted probably predate the log. That info should be moved to the appropriate talk page. Then we can nuke it. — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
File ist noch mal unterm anderen Namen gespeichert AlbertsGerhard (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate of File:Glaswaldsee panorama.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Glaswaldsee panorama.jpg
- speedy deletions Reason: Did the wrong image transfer. Request for deletion, the image will be re-transferred -Marrrci (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:Radwanderweg überquerung des Viadukts.JPG Duplicate with File:Bike-trail_crossing_of_the_viaduct.JPG --Marrrci (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Author request. --Korman (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate. Yann (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The website cited does not have a clear statement of releasing the photo to public domain --Amartyabag (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- This website is maintained by http://home.nic.in. So this takes us to the discussion if images present on many websites maintained by nic.in are public domain or not? nic.in is initiative of Government of India. Objective is to serve itself and people using IT. So is of http://www.whitehouse.gov and images from this US government website are also public domain. --Gppande (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. Unlike United States, Indian government does not release it's content to public-domain. This image is copyrighted and should be deleted. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not free. Hekerui (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Works of Indian govt are not automatically in the public domain Corpx (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per discussion and Corpx explaination. --Martin H. (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No author indicated; I could not find the picture at the URL given as source (somene else may have more luck than me, though); the permission box is bogus (screenshot of GPL software ???); without more information, it is unlikely that the {{Copyrighted free use}} license is correct and that the image is suitable for commons. Schutz (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If anything, this is fair use at best and not allowed on Commons. Similar pic also facing deletion on en.wiki Corpx (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. The licensing templates which are given here are utterly implausible respective not applicable, and Facebook as image source is completely incompatible with the license requirements of Commons except for images which have an explicit and plausible approval for use with a free license. This is clearly not the case here. --Uwe (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious violation of copyright. Cecil (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Image uploaded in a format (JPEG2K) not supported by MediaWiki, and the file seems to be corrupted somehow too: I've tried downloading and opening it in various image viewers and editors, but none of them will open it. Unless someone manages to open this file and convert it to a usable format, there's nothing we can really do with it. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Oops, looks like this deletion request didn't get properly listed when I originally filed it. I'm adding it to today's page now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader was notified March 1, and has not reacted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is charmar's only flickr image here and it is unfree. Flickr images must be licensed as either cc by 2.0 or cc by sa with no non-commercial or derivative restrictions. I'm not convinced this image was ever free enough for Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, licensed no-derivs now, and was Flickr reviewed in 2006 showing that same unacceptible license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Charmar here. I just changed the CC license on Flickr, so the image is free to use now.
Keep The flickr owner has changed the license to 'cc by sa.' I am submitting it for a flickrreview now. Once it passes, this DR can be closed. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The image is kept, as now freely CC-BY-SA licensed on Flickr. --Dereckson (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickrreview within 3 months of upload and is unused on Wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no confirmation was ever free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Image failed flickreview. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the uploader's sole image...and we cannot be certain if the license was ever different from All Rights Reserved. Secondly, there are no other images by Ric Wallace on Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no confirmation it was ever free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Likely copyvio. --Korman (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image failed flickr review. Sv1xv (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Some kind of joke; not in use, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic too. --Korman (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No source or permission either. --Simonxag (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for permission of the photos in the montage. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, collage of unsourced photos. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Images are likely derivative images. --Korman (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France, artist Clara Halter and architect Jean-Michel Wilmotte are both still alive Coyau (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. --Korman (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
and File:Victory Park in Maladzechna.JPG
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Post-WWII monument. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Finding with Tineye this photo was added to http://dvd4arab.maktoob.com/showthread.php?t=641126 on March 2006 - 9 month befor the upload on en.wp. Copyright violation suspected. Martin H. (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
MP3 file with ".jpg" suffix. (Why did the software even accept that?) No possible educational use that I can see, at least not with a description saying only "a great file." Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Failed flickrreview. Perhaps it could be replaced on wikipedia with this image: File:Palaul Culturii Iasi.jpg since it is VERY heavily used on wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I asked the Flickr owner via a Flickr photo comment if they would re-license as either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The license has been changed on flickr to cc-by-sa. –Tryphon☂ 07:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty awful out of focus image which failed flickrreview and is barely used on 1 wikipedia page. Surely Commons doesn't need to keep it. Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Flickr owner no longer has an account on Flickr so there is no way to contact to ask if they might re-license. Must delete as copyvio. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The source does not give any indication about the license, and the author is indicated as "anonymous"; the claimed CC license is thus unlikely to be correct (and the image is a derivative work of an older photo, which is almost certainly not under a CC license, unless otherwise proven). Schutz (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cette image est un montage anonyme effectué à partir d'une photographie diffusée librement et volontairement par la famille de la personne dont c'est le portrait. Cette image a été reproduite, sans aucun paiement de droits, par toute la presse internationale. Merci de ne pas supprimer cette image et de requalifier, le cas échéant, la licence. OcéanXXI (talk)
- Les contributeurs de commons ne peuvent pas "requalifier" une licence; c'est l'auteur (ou les auteurs) qui doi(ven)t indiquer sous quelle licence il(s) désire(nt) placer son (leur) oeuvre. Concernant la presse internationale, celle-ci travaille avec ses propres règles en la matière, qui sont différentes de celle de Wikimedia Commons (même entre les différentes versions linguistiques de Wikipédia et les différents projets, les règles ne sont pas les mêmes). Schutz (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete : Dura lex sed lex. The license must be displayed. --Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
deagel.com hosts many pictures. There is no evidence that we have a permission for this Avron (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Only the copyright owner can release copyrighted photos. Is the uploader the copyright owner? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work of image at http://famode.com/news.php?id=195 75.168.91.111 22:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Even TinEye can see that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the author of the drawing. This is a png version of this other drawing made by myself with Inkscape. I don't know what's the problem...yes I base my drawing on a photo like this, but I created the drawing from nothing in Inkscape, so I think I'm the author of this scheme, that is different from the photograph --Willtron (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Both pictures, the SVG version as well need to be deleted. The Inkscape drawing is so obviously derived from the copyrighted photograph, whether this was done mechanically or by hand is irrelevant, not a line or a wisp of hair is different. --Simonxag (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work; per Simonxag. –Tryphon☂ 08:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, as the user has other pictures that claim to be "own work" where it's clear they are not. --Garavello (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I´m the owner of the file. Why delete? I was in Istanbul some years ago and I take that picture. I think I was making some public service by putting the image in Commons. I have many pictures, I better think twice before upload to Commons.--Edviges (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. --89.176.117.214 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, web-resolution, no EXIF, and uploader has a (very) long history of copyvios with claim of authorship. –Tryphon☂ 07:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not in use; seems out of project scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- File:THE-DOT ConceptualAnimation.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:THREEE-CHIDOT operation silent-animation.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:THREEE-CHIDOT operation.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Three more images by the same contributer that are not in use. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:THE-DOT NextStep VariableExpansionRatio(RegulationDuringOperation-YellowArea).gif. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Keep Promotional material (illustrating a product), that's being released into the public domain. It may well be useful in illustrating the product should a wiki editor want to do this. --Simonxag (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete out of scope, not used.--Avron (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No first-party sourcing to verify licensing, image was since deleted from the English Wikipedia for the same lack of sourcing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also absurd and insulting misinformation in date, author, and source fields. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- But apparently a UK photo, so that age does not assure PD status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- But this image of the Titanic dressed is well known. It is used on book covers. Yet the only attribution that I can find is to a Michael Pocock (source), who is certain not the photographer and unlikely to be the copyright holder;
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- But this image of the Titanic dressed is well known. It is used on book covers. Yet the only attribution that I can find is to a Michael Pocock (source), who is certain not the photographer and unlikely to be the copyright holder;
- But apparently a UK photo, so that age does not assure PD status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- KeepThis photo is one of historical significance and cannot be replaced because the ship is no longer viewable in such condition. To show a photo of the wreck would not convey the same message that this photo does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevermark92 (talk • contribs)
- Comment That is completely irrelevent to Wikimedia Commons. While English Wikipedia allows limited "fair use" of non-free licensed media, here at Wikimedia Commons only free licensed images are allowed. Additionally, alternative images such as File:RMS Titanic sea trials April 2, 1912.jpg with better source and copyright info are availible. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain why the NARA shoebox would be a better source than book covers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apology for overlooking the "do not delete" instruction in the box. Photographer's name added, taken from here: I thought it was a fix for the "No first-party sourcing to verify licensing" reason for deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! However, now the problem is of finding the death year of the photographer H. Symes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that image is PD outside United States.--Trixt (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Le Monde is published in France, so French copyright should apply too. Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Country of origin is Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I limited the file to the photo of Lazhar Chraïti, which was taken in Tunisia, so the Tunisian Law must be applied to it. Thank you. --DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The place of publication is important, the place where something was created is not so important. Is it the well known Le Monde? So it is quite obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course a search warrant for this person was first published in Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, more clear: Can you prove this claim and give it a source? The burden of proof is with the uploader. At the moment the image is sourced to Le Monde -> unfree because of French copyright. In 1954 there was no Tunesia, it was French -> maybe unfree as long as no reason is given why french copyright should not apply.
- So what is needed: A source that proofs that the image was first published in Tunesia and a proof that it is not under french copyright because of 1) teritorial belonging and/or 2) possible simultaneous publication in France. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Le Monde has the copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, Le Monde is the (given) source. The copyright is with someone unknown - person or institution, a better source is not given. Back to the request: The image is published in France, the source Le Monde proves this, so French copyright should apply. The country of origin is France. So why should French copyright not apply? Some law, a bilateral agreement or a unilateral law declaring post-independet works under tunisian law? That needs clearification. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Mr Martin H., there was Tunisia at that time. And the occupation of Tunisia by France was only a protectorate on legal papers, so legally it was not belonging to France. For that reason, the photo was shot in Tunisia, not on a French soil. So, the copyright should be TUNISIAN. Thank you.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, Le Monde is the (given) source. The copyright is with someone unknown - person or institution, a better source is not given. Back to the request: The image is published in France, the source Le Monde proves this, so French copyright should apply. The country of origin is France. So why should French copyright not apply? Some law, a bilateral agreement or a unilateral law declaring post-independet works under tunisian law? That needs clearification. --Martin H. (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Le Monde has the copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course a search warrant for this person was first published in Tunesia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Only if the author is of Tunisian nationality or has permanent residence in Tunisia. Otherwise, the applicable copyright law is determined by the country of first publication. It does not matter (in the standard case) where a work was created. --Latebird (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
