Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/08/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This image is missing San Miguel in what is now Canada. The Louisiana Territory went over the Canadian border as well. --99.226.115.81 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep If we have a correct map then make a link to it and we can talk about it. If not then just fix it and upload a correct version. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Sv1xv (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
So what?! This is meaningless to Wikimedia, education and history. People may confuse this for the truth. --99.226.115.81 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep The study of popular literature is part of education, and the idea that people may confuse a map clearly labeled as one of a fictional world as fact is ludicrous; I'm much more worried that someone might confuse File:Impeach Warren.png or the likes, things that actually have a connection to the world, as real.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedily kept. A map with solid reference to a fiction novel. Sv1xv (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This file is the same as File:Location of the BOTs.png --99.226.115.81 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- kept it's not the same (different language). Multichill (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We already have images of the German Empire. No need for this one. Too many exist on the Commons! --99.226.115.81 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept Bogus deletion request. Sv1xv (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
We already have other images of the German colonial Empire, many being used, and this one isn't. Furthermore, Burma was still part of british India, Mongolia was still part of China, the Ottoman Empire was in control of the east and west rims of Saudi Arabia, Ecador and Peru had different borders between each other until 1918, and most importantly Germany did not control all of present day Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific. --Maps & Lucy (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Orphaned, Low Quality, use not stated, apparently redundant. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment vote based in part on incorrect assumption that this is orphaned; check sees image in use in at least 9 pages in multiple languge Wikipedias. Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment used several times, so the deletion request is erroneous (spelling?) in this respect. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very far from orphaned, in use in multiple pages in multiple Wikipedias. Creation of an improved or alternative version with details mentioned above corrected is encouraged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. --Simonxag (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use = in scope. If something is wrong then upload a correct version. MGA73 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't need 2 versions of the same thing! --99.226.115.81 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment And which file do you think that can replace this one? --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Bogus deletion request by disruptive user. Rocket000 (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
plenty of blank maps of europe exist and a few are empity like this one. --99.226.115.81 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept Bogus deletion request by disruptive user. Sv1xv (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Pointless! There are many maps that include the names of countries in Europpe of all variations on the Commons and all over the web. Having the Isle of Irland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, urbia, Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Russ Lands black and unidentified is rediculous! --99.226.115.81 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Bogus deletion request by disruptive user. Rocket000 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
To stretched and geographically off! --99.226.115.81 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept Bogus deletion request by disruptive user. Sv1xv (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review and is flickr owner majamarko's only image on Commons. No evidence his images were free enough for Commons --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed flickr review (CC-BY-NC-ND). Sv1xv (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: immagine obsoleta e orfana -79.16.81.170 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Ambro92 at Wikipedia
Delete It's an organ maker's logo. There's no way to see how old it is and so whether it's still in copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's 30 years ago! It must be removed -79.16.81.170 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Ambro92 at Wikipedia
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Pornography! 189.49.119.63 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use = in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ed Spear's page is about to be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy and therefore my image (ED_SPEAR.JPG) should be deleted too. --Infortunatus (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Mismatch of licenses. The original stated in the source is a version without the black stripe on Commons and has a PD license. This file however uses the "Presidencia license". In this case however a link to the location of the file at the presidencia would be needed. ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Changed license to match the one of the source. –Tryphon☂ 09:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Picture was taken in the 40s. The webmaster of the source website does not hold copyright over this picture and cannot give any authorization. Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Picture was taken in the 40s. Webmaster does not hold copyright. Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Blur permission (doesn't give any derivative work right for example). No source and licenses given from the pictures used, except they're all from this wiki (but under what license? what about the attribution clause?). Dereckson (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. An unambiguous permission should be sent to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Non free software screenshot Dereckson (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_license.php –Tryphon☂ 09:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Non free software screenshot Dereckson (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Non free software screenshot Dereckson (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Non free software screenshot Dereckson (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No sign that this picture is free of rights. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No sign that this picture is free of rights. Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No sign that this picture is free of rights. Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Scanned from a modern book. Sv1xv (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know it looks scanned but its not.I used adobe photoshop 4 to redraw it from scratch with layers.If i had it scanned it there would be weird whites and other staff.Megistias (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Even so, it is derivative work and not acceptable on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- wow, a sketch done om a pc copied from a book is not acceptable? Sorry thenMegistias (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- So my image falls in this case?
- I know it looks scanned but its not.I used adobe photoshop 4 to redraw it from scratch with layers.If i had it scanned it there would be weird whites and other staff.Megistias (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Images of characters/objects/scenes in books are subject to any copyright on the book itself. You cannot freely create and distribute a drawing of Albus Dumbledore any more than you could distribute your own Harry Potter movie. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author.Megistias (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well "The ruins of the city were discovered and excavated in 1948"Megistias (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep These plans are all based on excavations from 1948, it seems. It is like drawing a DNA molecule (structure unknown before Watson & Crick). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Map data are normally not subject to copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above (Pieter Kuiper & PaterMcFly. Yann (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploader is Jonathan Blair, claims own work. The image is watermarked "Photo by Cameron Wolf". -- Deadstar (msg) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The text at the source / licensing site is not a free licensing, it only says that you have to name the source if you reuse the photos under fair use or for private purposes. Commercial use is not mentioned, modification of the image is not mentioned. Martin H. (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a recent upload which failed flickr review for having a 'Non-Commercial' restriction Leoboudv (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This Flickr user has recently changed the licences on all his photos from the original cc-by-2.0 to no-commercial use. What counts is what the licence was at the time the image was accessed and loaded to Commons i.e. 6 months ago, when they were all cc-by-2.0. Otherwise I wouldn't have used them. Flickr is incorrect to allow retrospective licence changes, it has no valididy as a licence releases the work under its terms, and once released the ownner loses the right to reclaim it. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: You may be right as there are 41 images on Commons from this flickr account. What puzzles me is why you, the uploader, didn't order a {{Flickrreview}} right away at upload. Strange --Leoboudv (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was a big mistake I was making for over a year, sorry. I thought the Flickr Review detected the uploads from Flickr automatically, I didn't realise I had to use the review tag... a reviewer recently told me about it and I updated a lot of my uploads with the tag. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be better to upload using a bot, or putting in a template. But why is this necessary at all? Why does the upload template not accept URLs of images? That would save everybody a lot of work. As to this image, I say Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be better to upload using a bot, or putting in a template. But why is this necessary at all? Why does the upload template not accept URLs of images? That would save everybody a lot of work. As to this image, I say
- Comment: OK, I am prepared to accept good faith for this case. Keep. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Uploader has many uploads but only few deleted images. Most of the deleted images are dupes. It seems obvious to me that uploader knows if a license is ok or not. MGA73 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Superseded by File:Flag of Romania.svg, witch also has the correct colors Alex:D (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A photo of a photo does not make it free 74.32.175.183 04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is mostly a photo of a plaque and UK FOP allows it. The plaque is the main object, I would think, not the photograph. Of course, I could be wrong on FOP issues. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Although the plaque is a "work of artistic craftsmanship", the photo is not. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep I think this is a photo of a plaque that happens to have a photo attached, not of a photograph that happens to be on a plaque. --Simonxag (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is a photo of a plaque. I cannot see the difference between a photo of this plaque and the photo of the sort of plaque that would adorn a building or historical site. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept.--Trixt (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Permission given not specific enough -- Deadstar (msg) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS ticket is needed.--Trixt (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
This 50s promotional material is not self made and as such cannot be licensed by uploader. Below files are from the same booklet:
They are still copyrighted.
User has also uploaded files from the 1912 booklet, but two of them are licensed with an "I, the copyright holder" notice. (File:Piet Pelle 1912.jpg (correct with PD-old), File:PP 1912 1.jpg (incorrect PD-self) and File:PP 1912 2.jpg (incorrect PD-self)) Can we just change that to PD-old? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, but kept those from 1912 (author died in 1917). Kameraad Pjotr 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like made by himself, rather then recorded by him. iGEL (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) --iGEL (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Especially the explaining female voice-over suggest that this is a part of a broadcasted show. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. Delete mahanga (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Unless a copyright violation can be identitifed then the video should receive the benefit of the doubt. The video plays an important role on the "Bikini waxing" article on the English Wikipedia. Due to the intimate nature of the procedure it is difficult to locate footage demonstrating the process, so it would be unfortunate to lose the video unless we are sure it violates copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Very useful video but does seem like a bit from a broadcast or something. Did anyone try to contact the author or do video searches on google or etc? Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. In the absence of anything but hypothesis to the contrary, I'm inclined to trust the uploader's claim of rights to the clip. Avram (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.fehairandbeauty.com/ found via google by looking up "fe london" - the users name. This might lead to the copyrights owner.
- Keep. I found the video very useful and informative. Unless concrete and verifiable reasons are found to delete it, it should stay. Cynthiamonstertalk 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above.--Lamilli (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, almost certainly copyright violation, and no sourcing of the music. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Offers no intellectual value. Crude image. 69.86.72.74 11:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Come on... It is in use... --MGA73 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use, so useful. Sex relate images should not be assumed to be of no value. --Simonxag (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG (2nd nom)
[edit]
It' PORN! 189.49.119.63 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure): Was discussed above already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:HardttcoreEatsIndoMiMiPussy-1.JPG (3rd nom)
[edit]
Unlikely to be {{own}}. Author listed as "hardttcore". Looks like account has uploaded nothing but copyrighted porn and would need valid source and COM:OTRS at least. --Wknight94 talk 19:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Own not unlikely (see Pieter Kuiper arg)--DieBuche (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg; nominator, please consider mass DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use on da:WP, and a valid illustration of cunnilingus. However, I'd be grateful if closing admin could rename the image to something more useful, informing the projects using the image of the name change. Description text needs work too. --JN466 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I checked all three images uploaded by the user in Tineye; Tineye found no matches for any of them. Metadata of the cameras used would be consistent with these pictures having been taken by the user, and I would be prepared to AGF (unless there is a long history of deleted copyvios that I can't see). --JN466 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept Feel free to improve the description text and propose better image name. Infrogmation (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
File:SihColorWheel.png (and the thumbnail version File:Colorwheel Icon.png)
[edit]
Copyvio of http://r0k.us/graphics/sihImages.html but is it copyright eligible? Dereckson (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
I created the image in question, and placed it in the Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution license. To avoid further complaints, all images at
are my own work, and exist in the Commons specifically to share with others.
Rich Franzen, author of http://r0k.us/rock/ - 2*6 (talk)
- Oh, sorry, I missed the point you're the author of the website. We can close this NfD in this case. --Dereckson (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}