Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
no educational purpose; doesn't add anything to the ones we already have: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Testicle&fulltext=Search Wutsje (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Tabercil (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete We have plenty already. --Simonxag (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This picture is not Manothor's own work : see http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/beeldfiche.php?beeldid=479 Vlaam (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete feydey (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This picture is not Manothor's own work : see http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/beeldfiche.php?beeldid=32338 Vlaam (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
child pornography 75.135.75.108 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Nudity does not equal pornography, even if the subject of the photo is underage. Tabercil (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
pedophilia 178.176.146.22 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Mass bad faith nomination by since-blocked anon IP - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:178.176.146.22. Argument given confuses simple nudity with sexual content and per COM:SEX: "Except for images prominently featuring genitalia or sexual activity, mere partial or total nudity are generally not considered sexual content." Tabercil (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
child pornography 75.135.75.108 00:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nudity does not equal pornography, even if the subject of the photo is underage. Tabercil (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep From a 100 year old book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
pedophilia 178.176.146.22 21:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Mass bad faith nomination by since-blocked anon IP - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:178.176.146.22. Argument given confuses simple nudity with sexual content and per COM:SEX: "Except for images prominently featuring genitalia or sexual activity, mere partial or total nudity are generally not considered sexual content." Tabercil (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
child pornography 75.135.75.108 00:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nudity does not equal pornography, even if the subject of the photo is underage. Tabercil (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep From a 100 year old book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Naked 13-years old girl with open tits. 178.176.134.183 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Mass bad faith nomination by since-blocked anon IP - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:178.176.146.22. Argument given confuses simple nudity with sexual content and per COM:SEX: "Except for images prominently featuring genitalia or sexual activity, mere partial or total nudity are generally not considered sexual content." Tabercil (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons has plenty of these, see Category:Penis Wutsje (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Plenty of other photos, and most of better quality. Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I love my job, looking at a penis again :( Huib talk 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
bad quality; besides: Commons has plenty of these, see Category:Penile erection Wutsje (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Plenty of other photos, and most of better quality. Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons has plenty of these, see Category:Penis Wutsje (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Plenty of other photos, and most of better quality. Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Subject of photo not identified, photo not in use and no immediate educational use comes to mind. Tabercil (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No license. - Zil (d) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
image seems to be taken from here; shadow in foreground was slightly cropped away --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. — df| 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with assessment by nominator, seems like a copyright violation to me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. These sculptures almost certainly raise a rights issue. Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Statues with no author, it could be believed that those statues has been built around 1950~1960. No FOP in France. Not Free. - Zil (d) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The same image (in slightly different) resolution was deleted earlier because of copyright violations: I have my doubts about copyright issues. Uploader claims this is his own work. He had uploaded the same image before under a vague licence claiming the copyright was with tweakers.net. This seems highly doubtfull. 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 is the creator. I have my sincere doubts about the copyright of this image and therefore request a deletion. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brengbusontwerp.jpg for previous deletion of the same image.Fogeltje (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Not convinced based on the evidence that this is a free image and that the uploader is the copyright holder. The date of upload and the fact the image seems identical to the newspaper one is rather suspicious. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
First page of a newspaper. Not Free. --- Zil (d) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence that the licence given is valid, unlikely to be free. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; unencyclopedic, fictive image, not usable. Túrelio (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As the guy sez... Tabercil (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yep, I agree Inductiveload (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete too much photoshopping. feydey (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Creative but I can't see any use for this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted statues; FOP in the US is for buildings only. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I continue to disagree with how this enforced, and the assumption that these are copyrighted or even copyrightable. While I know I shouldn't use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I can find tens of thousands of photos of statues in the same limbo that exist here on the Commons, and I don't understand why this image now. I reach to see what others do here and elsewhere in areas where I am unfortunately not knowledgeable enough in the issue. It's frustrating the scrutiny, I'll say maybe undue, FAC brings to the images used. However if you do delete this, could you upload it to the English Wikipedia first? Best--Patrick «» 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, this isn't a question of an assumption; it is settled law. A statue is a copyrightable work, and a photograph of it is a derivative work. Using it, in the absence of a legal provision to the contrary, requires permission from both photographer and creator of the image.
- Are these other images all in the USA? Many countries (see COM:FOP) allow photographs of statues and other artworks to be used without permission of the creator of the work.
- As respects the other images, I can only suppose that someone will get to them eventually. I do have a personal project where I go through categories of images to weed out those images that we can't use; right now I'm working through non-free magazine covers on enwiki.
- I'm not an admin here, and even if I was I would not be closing this DR; I will endeavour to upload the image to enwiki so that it can be used there under NFCC. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Plain text, so not in scope. Should be in articles but not in an image. Avron (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Inappropriate format; unused. –Tryphon☂ 08:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Unused (bad) photo of not notable band. enwiki article was speedily deleted: [1] Nillerdk (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused private picture. –Tryphon☂ 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The creater claim he is the photographer and/or copyright owner but no information support his claim Matthew hk (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted along with File:Maresca uefa cup.jpg; missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 08:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Per undeletion request. file is missing source and there is doubt on the own work claim. Huib talk 05:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete The uploader makes no claim to be a professional photographer or indeed any claim about how the photo was produced, so this could be a quite intimate moment and the image a serious invasion of privacy for an identifiable person. --Simonxag (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image looks to professional and there is no meta date and it is uploaders only image. MGA73 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Not educational. Ltalc (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment This is a different image than the image of the same name deleted in 2009. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sign, unless the sign has been there since before 1978 in which case it is PD for failing to have a copyright notice. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- This has come up both previous times I nominated Virginia for FAC and has so far survived. I asked about these at en:WP:IMAGEHELP and was told it probably wasn't "creative enough" for copyright. If you want, see the whole lot of them at Category:State border signs in the United States. Most states have more than one photo there. I assume you mean that the bird and tree branch are the artistic issue, which together take up under 6% of the photo. The writing is not a logo I've seen anywhere else. The font itself seems to be "Commercial Script Regular". I believe most Macs come with a version.--Patrick «» 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. From what I can find, this is the old welcome sign and the "design goes back to the 1950s" and it "was changed slightly in the early 1980s". See here and here. There's probably no easy way to find out what this slight change was, but since the most reliable sources available describe it as a slight change, I think it's pretty safe to assume it wasn't a meaningful enough of a change to refresh the copyright. Bluepjs23 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. NW (Talk) 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio on flickr, based on the other uploads of the flickr user. Not freely licensed anyway, full copyright. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolitsaboutieros/3116271240/ --- Zil (d) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. All rights reserved on Flickr and no permission found in OTRS. MGA73 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation from the image here. --Manco Capac (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Based on Image:Basketball_court_dimensions.png, which was uploaded in 2005. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There gives an error message, no such image. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no copyvio (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No sign that first publication occured in China. Missing source information. Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think should be published by the japanese imperial army during the sino japanese war. {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} --Yimeagle (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you find this picture? What information was available there? --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- here. It's about Sino Japanese war and bombardment of Chungking. --Yimeagle (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then no more information about the first publication of the work? --Eusebius (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- here. It's about Sino Japanese war and bombardment of Chungking. --Yimeagle (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The source (from China) didn't give further information.
However, it was a photograph about a group of bombers of the Japanese Imperial Army bombing China's Chungking during sino japanese war, so it is reasonably probable that the photo was taken and first publicated by the JIA of the Empire of Japan.
Anyway there were only Chinese warplanes or Japanese warplanes fighting in the sky during the sino japanese war. The Flying tiger (US volunteers) was under China's direction.
--Yimeagle (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're probably right, but that doesn't say anything about the first publication of the work. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I admit that the source give no further information about that. Only that the first publication must be either by the Republic of China or the Empire of Japan. (Mostly likely the japanese for propaganda purpose. (during time 1937 - 1945)).
--Yimeagle (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is reasonable to Keep with {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, PD-Japan-oldphoto. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by uploader for "There is File:Cinque maestri del rinascimento fiorentino, XVI sec, giotto.JPG" to rfd by me. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot understand you. What's the matter if I requested speedy deletion for a file that exists already on commons? I just realized this too late. --Gikü (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The images are not really (100%) duplicates, which would justify a speedy deletion. An RFD as this one may well end in deletion, but it allows community discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This copy seems to be a scan of a rastered image, inferior in quality to the other file.
Uploaderthe person who tranferred this to commons is requesting deletion, and it is not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This pic and some more from es:MADRES_(película) need an OTRS ticket by Eduardo Walger, isn't it? 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC) --79.194.92.139 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment i'm not sure i understand your logic....the image is that of a completely different lake. --emerson7 | Talk 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Your nomination reason makes it appear as if you nominate it because the spelling in filename and description is wrong. That is no ground for deletion. If the image is of a completely different lake than the one it is supposed to be, you should state that in the nomination. However, if you nominate it because there's a name in the typo, there's no reason to change it, just fix the typo in the description.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: bottom line: 1) the image is not of lake tuendae, and 2) everything about the file is incorrect, including the filename and description. other than being a generic picture in the desert (of which we have little use) one can only speculate about what the actual subject of the image is about. --emerson7 | Talk 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Fogeltje. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It appears the nominator wants them to be deleted because they are not of said lake. I was under the impression he was disturbed by the typo in the anem and description, therefore thinking this image was incorrect. I trust nominators knowledge on the matter, so I see no problem with this being deleted.--Fogeltje (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept, which lake is it? Kameraad Pjotr 19:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
inaccurate desc and title. 1) correct spelling is: en:Tuendae. 2) Tuendae is a smallish artificial concrete-lined pond as shown here and here. emerson7 | Talk 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it a reason to delete ? - Zil (d) 12:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete this file.--Fogeltje (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment i'm not sure i understand your logic....the image is that of a completely different lake. --emerson7 | Talk 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- CommentYour nomination reason makes it appear as if you nominate it because the spelling in filename and description is wrong. That is no ground for deletion. If the image is of a completely different lake than the one it is supposed to be, you should state that in the nomination. However, if you nominate it because there's a name in the typo, there's no reason to change it, just fix the typo in the description.--Fogeltje (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: bottom line: 1) the image is not of lake tuendae, and 2) everything about the file is incorrect, including the filename and description. other than being a generic picture in the desert (of which we have little use) one can only speculate about what the actual subject of the image is about. --emerson7 | Talk 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If the image is not of said lake, then you should have made your nomination more clear. I trust you can see if the image is not of this lake, so I guess there is no problem with deleting the image after all. Having an incorrect filename or description (a typo) itself though is not a ground for deletion if this image had been of lake tuendae, but the description could have simply been corrected to change the spelling. I believed you nominated it only because there was a typo in the filename and description but the image still being of said lake.--Fogeltje (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Fogeltje's reasoning. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Artworks by Danny Sillada
[edit]
- File:Adam_&_Eve,_2003,_50_X_40_inches_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_C._Sillada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bandage_of_Faith,_2009,_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Daloy,_2003,_installation_art_by_Danny_Sillada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Danny_C._Sillada.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Danny_Sillada_performing_his_ethnic_music_with_higalong_instrument.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Enemy_Within,_live_art_performance_by_Danny_C._Sillada_(from_the_series_of_Juramintado_live_art_performances).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Fountain_of_Life,_installation_art_by_Danny_Sillada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:I_&_Thou_Encounter_Series,_pen_&_ink_by_Danny_C._Sillada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Menstrual_Period_in_Political_History,_2005,_60_x_50_inch,_acrylic_&_metamorphic_rock_on_board.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Political_Masturbation_on_Mass_Media_and_Television,_2009,_gold_leaf_&_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:The_Messenger_in_the_Land_of_Broken_Promises,_2009,_gold_leaf_&_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:When_a_Mask_is_no_longer_a_Mask,_2009,_oil_on_canvas_by_Danny_Sillada.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Painting by known author uploded to flicker by someone else. No proof that painting was released as CC Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment After closer inspection all paintings in Category:Danny Sillada or all uploads by User:Jaclorenz seen like copy violations: flicker uploader seems to be uploding stuff he finds on the internet and not his own works. For example File:Danny C. Sillada.JPG can be found here and it is an official publicity photo of the author. As for artwork of Danny Sillada we need a proof that Danny Sillada released it under CC license. Link to his internet page saying so or Commons:OTRS would be needed. --Jarekt (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I am quite convinced that http://www.flickr.com/photos/existentialist/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/thephilosopher/ are the artist's own accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, after even more research I found [2] which suggest that flicker uploder the Philosopher is the author of the paintings Danny Sillada. In such a case all the images here would be fine. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)