Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/10
 |
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}
Anghara of anghara.wordpress.com is not the author or owner of any copyrights, the license is invalid. See http://www.elmundo.es/2001/03/27/espana/index.html: Photo by Agencia EFE. This "Creative Commons" blogs are a real mess. Martin H. (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Korman (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The Category:Walther Soyka (musician) already exists. --Tsui (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate category, not in use. Could this be speedy'd?--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I1 -- There is another same image is used.
Comment The correct filename of the other image is File:Zh Battle of Vigo Bay.png. Sv1xv (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Uploader's only other contribution to date has been File:SAG3.jpg, which was deleted as a known copyvio. Thus this image might well be a copyvio, and should be removed for safety's sakes. Tabercil (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not the same image but also a blatant violation of copyrights. Source is given with the deletion summary. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
File lacks source information, and I find it unlikely one person took all the high-quality pictures herein. It's also potentially a copyvio of [1] ÷seresin 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, With no source provided and with the nature of the images I would agree that it's highly likely that this is copyvio. It is used in 3 locations. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Phew...this smells. Good catch seresin. --Korman (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep this fuzzy and slightly out of focus image? It is unused on wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed flickr review (CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0). Sv1xv (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is ManImMac's only flickr image on Commons. Although it is a great high resolution photo, I don't see any evidence that he licenses his images freely--without a non-Commercial restriction such as "Attribution Creative Commons." Leoboudv (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed flickr review (CC-BY-NC) on 2006-12-12. Sv1xv (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Source is stated as Falcom Magazine. Therefore most probably a copyright violation Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Super low resolution too. A clear copyvio. --Korman (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by Bygdeknøl (talk · contribs) for "I, the uploader, wish to remove this file from Wikipedia" to rfd by me. Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- But why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I don't hold the necessary rights to the image. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- Was the image taken from here? --Túrelio (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, but it is the same image, and the same photographer.(Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- It may be that the norwegian copyrightlaws, open for free use concerning pictures of buildings, this should be investigated. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- If you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should be deleted, as first requested. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- If you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may be that the norwegian copyrightlaws, open for free use concerning pictures of buildings, this should be investigated. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Deleted as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by Bygdeknøl (talk · contribs) for "I, the uploader, wish to remove this file from Wikipedia" to rfd by me. Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- But why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I don't hold the necessary rights to the image. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- That's sad because the image is used on 2 pages. --Túrelio (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Was the image taken from here? --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is the same picture, but I believe it to be a different version. I plan to replace this and the other pictures I have requested deleted with new pictures.(Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- It may be that the norwegian copyrightlaws, open for free use concerning pictures of buildings, this should be investigated. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- No, if you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should be deleted, I plan to take a new picture later this week to replace this image (if the weather allows it). (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- No, if you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, and as substitute will likely become available by effort of the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolution too low (less than pixel!), watermarked, unused Vigilius (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - resolution looks fine (339 × 537) and the watermark is easy to remove. In scope and could be use (it's rather soft though) - Peripitus (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- The actual resolution is significantly lower than the number pixels... Image starts to become sharp at around 127 x 200 px. That is what you call "soft". --Vigilius (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have a good point - Peripitus (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- The actual resolution is significantly lower than the number pixels... Image starts to become sharp at around 127 x 200 px. That is what you call "soft". --Vigilius (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Resolution is very low indeed, we have many better pictures of the same subject (File:Ciconia ciconia (aka).jpg for instance). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
terrible quality, many good pictures of this object existing on the commons Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by Bygdeknøl (talk · contribs) for "I, the uploader, wish to remove this file from Wikipedia" to rfd by me. Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- But why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)- Because I don't hold the necessary rights to the image. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- Was the image taken from here? --Túrelio (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe so. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- It may be that the norwegian copyrightlaws, open for free use concerning pictures of buildings, this should be investigated. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- If you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should be deleted, I plan to take a new picture later this week to replace this image (if the weather allows it). (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- If you didn't take the photo by yourself and if the photographer isn't dead since >70 years, it should still be copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, and as a substitute will likely become available by effort of the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by Bygdeknøl (talk · contribs) for "I, the uploader, wish to remove this file from Wikipedia" to rfd by me. Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- But why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I don't hold the necessary rights to the image. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- Was the image taken from here? --Túrelio (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.(Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- It may be that the norwegian copyrightlaws, open for free use concerning pictures of buildings, this should be investigated. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- You are likely refering to Freedom of panorama. But that doesn't help when the photo wasn't taken by yourself. Freedom of panorama allows you to publish photos (taken by yourself) of a building that has enough originality to be considered a work of art and whose architect isn't dead since >70 years. --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it should be deleted, I plan to take a new picture later this week to replace this image (if the weather allows it). (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- You are likely refering to Freedom of panorama. But that doesn't help when the photo wasn't taken by yourself. Freedom of panorama allows you to publish photos (taken by yourself) of a building that has enough originality to be considered a work of art and whose architect isn't dead since >70 years. --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, and as substitute will likely become available by effort of the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by Bygdeknøl (talk · contribs) for "I, the uploader, wish to remove this file from Wikipedia" to rfd by me. Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- But why do you want it have deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because I don't hold the necessary rights to the image. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- And no chance to get the rights (a posteriori)? --Túrelio (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- What is do you mean with a posteriori? (Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- Sorry, it means afterwards. --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The original designer Peter Blix died in 1901, so it may be possible to publish it afterall, but the license must in that case be changed.(Bygdeknøl (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- O.k., then it should be public domain. Do you remember the source of the file? --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be sure: the drawing is by Peter Blix, right? --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes the drawing is by Peter Blix, from (1896-1897 maybe) and the largest version is this: http://www.eidsberg.kommune.no/GetFile.aspx/images/EPII_ID/3516/EPIT_ID/org, but I have also found another version (signed Blix), http://wadbring.com/historia/bilder4/valdis.jpg could also this be uploaded under public domain? (Bygdeknøl (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- Well, the position of the Wikimedia foundation is, that a faithful reproduction of a 2-dimensional work of art that in itself is in the public domain (no valid copyright with the artist) merits no own copyright (see: {{PD-Art}}) and thereby is free. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep in consideration that it should be public domain resp. PD-Art. --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it is ok for me to upload it (it is signed Peter Blix)? (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- My keep-vote relates to the b/w drawing that you had uploaded and here is requested for deletion. This rfd should go it's course (likely will be kept). Independently you may upload (under a different filename) the color drawing/painting that you've mentioned above. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then I will do that. Thanks so much for the help, I hope I haven't go a bad reputation on Wikipedia after this. (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
- My keep-vote relates to the b/w drawing that you had uploaded and here is requested for deletion. This rfd should go it's course (likely will be kept). Independently you may upload (under a different filename) the color drawing/painting that you've mentioned above. --Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then it is ok for me to upload it (it is signed Peter Blix)? (Bygdeknøl (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Same image is used here www.yrittajat.fi/uusimaa_jasenehdokkaat. Site claims copyright. Anyway, uploader is not the author, so he can not claim "I, the copyright holder of this work.."etc. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, certainly appears to be at a minimum a copyvio from [2]. Looks like a standard corporate head shot so is most likely copyright by a professional photographer. It is the only upload by User:Petterin and is in use on 1 page.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It is official election photo of new member of parliament. Of cource Jan and Jastrow have right to have their own political views but it isn´t fair to prohibit possibility to present all members of parliliament at equal way. ;)
I don't think the person is notable, the picture is not in use, I'd say out of scope. Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I had this up for speedy delete and it was changed?? It is a duplicate of the user photo and is such a poor quality. dozens and dozens of his photos have all been deleted over the past year. WayneRay (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was changed because bad quality in itself is not a valid reason for deletion. If it is a duplicate, would you please provide a link to the other version? --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, unused user picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This file is corrupted, I can see image in editor (such as en:Inkscape), but after uploading, I can not see image in the browser. -Lixuesong (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- librsvg-ERROR **: _rsvg_acquire_xlink_href_resource called for external resource: BSicon_vxHST-STR.png base: (null) ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
corrupted svg Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - could be used in en:Intense pulsed light or similar articles in other languages - Peripitus (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Bad quality - Wutsje (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the quality is not the best, but do we have anything better? Until we do we could keep it. And that it is not used is no problem if it could be used. As said in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mens IPL1.jpg it could be used. User had made a small serie of images:
- File:Mens IPL1.jpg
- File:Mens IPL2.jpg
- File:Mens IPL3.jpg
- File:Mens IPL4.jpg
- File:Hoden-Epilation.jpg
- I suggest that the debate is seen as a whole and that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mens IPL1.jpg is where the debate takes place. --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the other way around. One of his images was recently removed from en:Intense pulsed light with the motivation Removed picture of male genitals which was irrelevant to topic. Please, also consider the credibility of this user. He has been blocked indefinitely on the german wikipedia and got a warning on en:User_talk:Marc.zuhause. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well maybe they does not like to show genitals on enwiki and that why user was blocked. If you see en:Sexual intercourse and en:Oral sex there is no real images. The article on dawiki however does show far more. So if they are like "oh no a penis" on enwiki does not mean that it is like that on other wikies. --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the other way around. One of his images was recently removed from en:Intense pulsed light with the motivation Removed picture of male genitals which was irrelevant to topic. Please, also consider the credibility of this user. He has been blocked indefinitely on the german wikipedia and got a warning on en:User_talk:Marc.zuhause. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Well inside our scope, with no better replacement. –Tryphon☂ 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Even it isn't a good filename this image could be used for an educational purpose. In en:Human anus for example.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yet another image does not improve that lemma. The photograph is called Geil, meaning randy, horny. The intention of this contributor is not good. Look at my findings here User_talk:Marc.zuhause#Blocked_indefinitely Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The image does not get no-educational because it wouldn't improve the lemma. The filename and the attention is no reason for deletion. You would have to remove all images of hitler taken by a german citizen for example because in and before WW 2 these images were taken for propagandistic purpose rather than for educational. Keep in mind that Commons is not cencored.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no valid reason for deleting. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It has an erotical purpose, pratically pornographic. 189.49.120.20 04:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Read Commons:Project scope. Commons is not cencored. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Photographs of the human body are useful to illustrate that subject. We only delete them if we have too many of a particular type or they are of poor quality. --Simonxag (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
CommentThis is not about censure. Commons is simply not a repository for exciting pictures. Even if this picture would be renamed, it would not be an improvement, because there are already many other pictures in stock that show or explain the particulars. These images are not here for educational purposes, they are here to show the excitement of the uploader. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. within scope. Yann (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I see no valid reason for deleting. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image is very simmilar to Geil2.JPG but is made of poorer quality --D-Kuru (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. near duplicate of File:Geil2.JPG, poor quality. Yann (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree. I actually use this file while teaching Anatomy & Physiology of Genitourinary because it is one of the few pictures of a female where the urethral meatus is visible. I agree this is probably not what the picture was originally taken for, but I have still found it useful in that aspect. comment by User:Jprich
- We already have an image for that purpose. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deleting. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you should keep it, its a very nice female anatomy picture. It shows everything.
Kept. within scope. Yann (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
company logo, unused, article en:SMA,_Schulich_School_of_Business was deleted for advertising Ikar.us (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Vector image linking to a bitmap not incorporated. Useless. --F l a n k e r (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
corrupted svg Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
not in scope Avron (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Very low resolution, poor contrast, good image present in commons. Unused on wikimedia projects. G.Hagedorn (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Scanned on 10-07-2009 17:00 utc in use on 4 places on three projects. In scope. Huib talk 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Quality is so poor that even as thumbnail (see Category:Corvus_cornix) it is out of focus. Commons does not profit from unusable "noise" images, if dozens of usable images exist. Usage reduced to 1 use on user page of original uploader. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly reasonable image --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Commons' scope doesn't depend on it being actually used, just usable. The fact that it was used shows that it is (and will remain) usable. Removing usage from articles should not affect its status on Commons one bit. That said, replacing it with better images is probably a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Usable. --84.42.140.49 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Not in scope COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content Avron (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Not in scope COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content Avron (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not in scope COM:SCOPE#Excluded_educational_content Avron (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope, Logo of nonnotable origanization. Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
advertising poster of not notable russian rock band Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedied by User:Infrogmation. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Replaced by file:Carte Tour de France 2009.png. Tilla (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Posted in Skyscraper on 14th June 2007 (http://www.skyscraperlife.com/argentina/6891-formosa-ciudad-verde-2.html). The flickr photo was uploaded on april 10, 2009. Alakasam (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Because the photo uploaded in flickr hasn't permission. Alakasam (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, agree, the image on Skyscrapercity comes from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1500638, thats the source. --Martin H. (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic use. --Korman (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo used in deleted autobio page en:User:Rahad555 JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader's last remaining contribution, different from the file deleted in previous request. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No description, not used anywhere, small size and bad quality. out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned and per nom's "personal photo" statement. Ceranthor 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album, not used anywhere. Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Logo of a nonnotable music group, out of projects scope. Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
out of project scope, Small size, bad quality, Commons is not a personal photo album. Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have my doubts about copyright issues. Source is a vague tweakers link with no legal info at all. The same image appears in a newspaper article from a day earlier (http://www.gelderlander.nl/voorpagina/nijmegen/5230572/Nieuwe-busbedrijf-in-de-regio-heet-BRENG.ece), so I doubt the uploader on tweakers has the rights to the picture. This picture was already uploaded as "own work" before but this was changed after I left a note about the newspaper article on the uploaders talk page on the Dutch wikipedia. I have my sincere doubts about the copyright of this image and therefore request a deletion. Fogeltje (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Flickr washing? (http://tineye.com/search/99a10ba172e20b866f1dfe7787bd5b0a35560cfd) High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted - Person in question is Miri Hanai (another pic from the same shoot can be found here); given the high number of TinEye hits, I'd say it's safe to assume it's FlickrWashed. Tabercil (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this is own work, so the gfdl license is incorrect. Please give a good source. Huib talk 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This is not own work. This is a scan of an image not yet in the public domain. Multichill (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is this image PD, please give a good source. Huib talk 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Metadata shows its made by a scanner, is this own work or a scanned image? Huib talk 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan, I doubt its own work Huib talk 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
image with watermarked author name, cropped version already exists in File:Flugbild_Kormoran.jpg G.Hagedorn (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Far to small to be usefull in any context - I cant see anything on this desktop screenshot. Martin H. (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Useless image. --Korman (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
My error. This SVG has bugs in it. Please remove, thanks. Aldaron (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope, Commons is not an archive for family photos that are not useful in any educational context. Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. Source account has a large number of Julie Benz photos present, and I've found several which trace back to WireImage which are uncredited. For instance, this image can be found here, this is from here and this from here. Tabercil (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copyright violations. This can be speedied. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Deleted. Tabercil (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Image is used here: www.songkhoe.net.vn/?mod=news&view_news_id=805. Own work is doubtfull Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Is this own work, looks like a scan Huib talk 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, probably a scan of a book. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Previously tagged for speedy with the reason: "Image inappropriately tagged by NPS as public domainy if it is not PD, who is the author?". The source link is broken, but I'm not sure why the PD status would not be ok, if this is a picture of the National Park Service. Eusebius (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The picture was taken as part of the National Register of Historic Places nomination, which in this, and most similar cases, means that it was not done by Park Service employees. I originally found this on another portion of the Park Service website and later saw it on the National Register documentation associated with the lookout tower. I have corresponded with the Park Service on other National Register of Historic Places images, and they have stated that the public domain that they assert on their NRHP website is erroneous; all photo ownership remains with the author - in this case, Historical Research Associates of Missoula, Montana. To quote from an email from the NPS:
- "We had originally thought this default would be appropriate for photographs but have since found out it is apparently the responsibility of the user to verify whether or not a photograph is in the public domain before using it.
- We have never requested releases. This makes it quite difficult on your end to use these images." (emphasis mine)
- National Register Information System Reference Desk
- National Park Service
- Since the image is not public domain, as I had originally thought, I have nominated it for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then in the light of this information, unless somebody is motivated enough to sought permission from the Historical Research Associates of Missoula, Montana, I guess we should Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm working on getting permission from some of the more centralized and high-quality sources - the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office for one, but I haven't found a contact for HRA yet - they were active in the 80s - and they're not high on the priority list. I think we'll eventually get a good number of these, but I'm trying to focus my efforts on the most prolific sources and can part with this one for now. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've located HRA and will get in contact with them about permissions, but in the meantime I'd prefer to go ahead and delete, as evidence of our good faith in this effort. It's easy enough to re-upload if and when permission is obtained. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- No need to reupload, it can be undeleted by an admin once you get a permission. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just so, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- No need to reupload, it can be undeleted by an admin once you get a permission. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've located HRA and will get in contact with them about permissions, but in the meantime I'd prefer to go ahead and delete, as evidence of our good faith in this effort. It's easy enough to re-upload if and when permission is obtained. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm working on getting permission from some of the more centralized and high-quality sources - the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office for one, but I haven't found a contact for HRA yet - they were active in the 80s - and they're not high on the priority list. I think we'll eventually get a good number of these, but I'm trying to focus my efforts on the most prolific sources and can part with this one for now. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then in the light of this information, unless somebody is motivated enough to sought permission from the Historical Research Associates of Missoula, Montana, I guess we should
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Images of Marine12
[edit]
Both images of Marine12 (talk · contribs) are out of scope (personal snapshots, not realistically useful for an educational purpose) 92.227.115.81 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with OP. Not useful Corpx (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion --G.Hagedorn (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The images are so small as to be pratically unusable. Tabercil (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Junk is the best I can do, thanks Herby talk thyme 14:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And we go into the next round:
This image is made of poor quality which can hardly be used in any article. I would suggest to delete Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg as well. All four images are blurred and wiggly. All images can partly be replaced by Haarentfernung IPL ONLYSKIN.jpg. Even these images can't be replaced in every purpose overall we have enough good images of the male genitalia and that lamp does not make it in scope if the quality is not good enough. Moreover the author of Mens IPL3.jpg and Mens IPL4.jpg is "[private person]" which makes me assume that Marc.zuhause is not the author and is furthermore maybe not allowed to publish these images under a free licence.
Even Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg are kept I would would delete Mens IPL4.jpg in every case because it's the most blurred and wiggly image of all and can easily replaced by every one of the three other images
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
