Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/02

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 2nd, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Spare ribs back uncooked.jpg

[edit]

Copyright Violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.227.177 (talk • contribs)

Note: I fixed this page. The IP user used {{delete}} here previously with this rationale. Killiondude (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foto0684.jpg

[edit]

out of scope Jarekt (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Leyo 14:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete And quickly, since the notes there arguably constitute libel on living people. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Attack image. —Jagro (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Leyo 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Disney_Channel_wordmark.svg

[edit]

File:The Walt Disney Company.svg

File:Logo WaltDisneyCo.svg

File:The Walt Disney Company.png


I believe this meets the threshold of originality, because the Disney logo is not just a simple typeface. I believe this should be deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I just added a few more logos that also contain variants of "Walt Disney". I believe the stylized "Walt Disney" is stylized enough to not be considered eligible under {{PD-textlogo}}. Killiondude (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Well yes the Walt Disney logo is not as simple as Yamaha logo.svg for example. However, it's still plane text which is not really creative. Just using a different font in (eg) Microsoft Word does not make a logo creative, does it? If you tipe in "YAHAMA" in MC Word with Times New Roman as typeface it is not eligible for copyright. If you would change the typeface to Brush Script MT (or some other typeface which is creative at the same rate) it wouldn't be ineligible for copyright any longer. I actually don't think that this make that much sense. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn/Kept. Killiondude (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Disney_Channel_wordmark.svg

[edit]

According to a search of US Copyright Office records, the Disney Channel logo is copyrighted in the US. The registration number is VAu000575197 and may be found by visiting http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First and searching for that number. AussieLegend (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I don't think that's this logo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This logo has been around since well before 2002, which is given as the date of creation by the record you cite, so the logo in question is clearly different from what you're talking about. Precedent is clear that text in different typefaces is not copyrightable just because of the typeface, so the only way that a piece of text can be a copyvio is if the text is significant enough to be beyond de minimis — and surely the two words "Disney Channel" cannot be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of registration is really a non-issue since the register just provides the last date that the logo was registered. It may well have been registered before then and re-registered in 2002 for some administrative purposes. That happens all the time. Since, according to the register, "Disney Channel" is copyrighted the argument that the words can't be copyrighted doesn't hold water. As I indicated above, the point is that there is some doubt and therefore we need unassailable evidence that the Disney Channel logo that is copyrighted is not this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're a bit confused. Maybe you misspoke, but you say "the argument that the words can't be copyrighted doesn't hold water"; well, it's indisputable that the words "Disney Channel", in the abstract, can't be copyrighted.[1] So all you're left with is whether this particular logo presents those words in a copyrightable manner. And the above "keep" commenters are correct in noting that this file is nothing but typeface, and correct in noting that under U.S. copyright law that pure typeface cannot be copyrighted (not to mention that Commons policy judges this to be the case). You don't know, and have no reason to believe, that the register entry you found applies to the logo represented by this file. Its title is "Disney Channel," but there's nothing to indicate that the registered logo consists of nothing but those words, let alone this particular representation of those words; there is no description of what the logo looks like. You'll have to do better than that to establish doubt here, particularly where Commons policy and our understanding of the law is contrary to the position you're trying to argue. Postdlf (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other deletion discussions the requirement seems to generally be proving proof that the file is free, not that it isn't free. Here we have a US government source saying the Disney Channel logo is copyrighted, and therefore not free. We really need proof that this Disney Channel logo is not copyrighted. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have proof; the Copyright Office has clearly said that it doesn't register things like this for copyright. So obviously, this is something else that was registered for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a US government source saying that a Disney Channel logo is copyrighted. And we have every reason to believe it's something like this or this rather than the one in this file. Postdlf (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't know for sure what the logo that is copyrighted actually is, both of these comments are speculative. You need to prove what the copyrighted logo is in order to prove that this is not it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this last comment, since you can't prove it's not copyrighted. It's not speculation to know the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replace This is off-topic but the "y" is cut off so I say someone replaces the image with one where the y is full. --DisneyFriends (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - {{PD-textlogo}} - Jcb (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AmazonRiverDolpinleaping.jpg

[edit]

Uploader says found on photobucket.com (no more specific info offered), by unknown author. But tagged as released to public domain as own work. --Infrogmation (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK guys I am trying to make sense out of this defianetly since you gave me such a workout with all these pictures having the same problem. Am I not allowed to get photos I downloaded on photobucket.com and if I did what source is there and if I did who do I get to credit to or permission to. And what license do I use? Please I am new at this and I am all ears I want these problems resolved and I want these pictures to stay. Please help me out nicely It's driving me crazy Thank you!Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/amazon%20river/hardyje/South%20America/AmazonDolphin2.jpg?o=169

  • No, you are not allowed to other people's work UNLESS you can show that either it has been released by the copyright holder under a free license, or is public domain. See Commons:Licensing. The page you link to clearly says "© 2009 photobucket inc. all rights reserved", and I see no evidence from the links you've provided that this has been released under a free license. Why are you claiming it has been? Infrogmation (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; incorrect license by confused new user. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tõnismäe_monument_1999.jpg

[edit]

No COM:FOP in Estonia or any of the former Soviet republics. Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks like you are right. --WikedKentaur (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glossop_War_Memorial.jpg

[edit]

The uploader says the flickr license always had Non-Commercial restrictions. Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Flickr uploader refuses to release without Non Commercial restriction.Captain-tucker (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kate_DeAraugo_-_Kmart.jpg

[edit]

This 'diva' flickr account has only 10 images which focus on 3-4 personalities. No evidence the flickrowner is the copyright owner here. Flickr owner does not seem to be an Allan Light. Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MBisanz talk 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The images was uploaded from a random website first, the source was later changed to the flickr washing account. Martin H. (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kim_Il-sung.jpg

[edit]

This art is owned by the state of North Korea and is a poster. Commons cannot keep it. Leoboudv (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per COM:FOP#Korea (North) Avi (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Not build space probes

[edit]

wrong name; the right named Category is Category:Not built space probes --Uwe W. (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted typo. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La_takedown.jpg

[edit]

NO COM:FOP for modern art is the US. Only for buildings. Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No evidence that it was painted prior to 1977 (for {{PD-US-no notice}} use) or prior to 1989 for {{PD-US-1978-89}} use, so must assume copyrighted. Avi (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StanaKatic3.jpg

[edit]

We do not have enough licence information with this source: "Stana-katic.com" 132.199.33.34 09:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 9 November 2009 User:Leafnode deleted "File:StanaKatic3.jpg" ‎ - In category Media without a license as of 2 November 2009; no license closing request. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HoofdkantoorMeeùs.jpg

[edit]

Incorrectly licensed: Creator "Meeùs", but has a "self" license. I suspect this is taken from the company website. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bundesliga-Anstoßzeiten 2009–10.jpg

[edit]

Image using a non-free logo. Leyo 10:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Ich hab das leider beim verschieben übersehen und Septembermorgen ist es auch nicht aufgefallen (auf der Beschreibungsseite hat der Logo-Baustein gefehlt). --Berntie (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment English, german, and french wikipedia use this logo in the de:Fußball-Bundesliga articles though. Schmelzle (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not free. --Berntie (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The logo is not free. --Berntie (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Not built space probes

[edit]

Now on better name Category:Cancelled space probes --Uwe W. (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the name... -- Deadstar (msg) 12:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pino.ogg

[edit]

Description = "test", and uploader has a correct (in use) version at File:Nl-Pino(vogel) article.ogg. There are two other unused versions (File:Pino3.ogg and File:Pino4.ogg) of this same file, which I'd also like to nominate here. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and apparently File:Jantje.ogg is also a test version for this particular article. Nominating it as well. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Redundant and unused--Fanghong (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aoa101.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. The article en:Addicts of Affliction was deleted (non-notable band). Pruneautalk 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Betty Page in Bizarre Magazine.jpg

[edit]

indication is not given that its copyright was not renewed. --Klodl (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not reason for deletion, unless you can give evidence copyright was renewed. However, here is a link to periodical renewals, and if you look online you'll find others. All of them agree that Bizarre Magazine, published by John Willie, in which this photo was first printed; was never renewed. Max Rebo Band (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the above link before deletion request. However, Bizarre Magazine or John Willie isn't included on its list. --Klodl (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is evidence it was not renewed. Max Rebo Band (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MBisanz talk 07:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orospuhabib.png

[edit]

vandalism - "Orospu" means "prostitute" or "whore" in Turkish --Vito Genovese 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tyhypko_Billboard_2009.jpg

[edit]

and

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 12:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Anthony_Grooms.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation--Georgia Encyclopedia copyrights its images Kenmayer (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:First_Light_Veistospuistossa.jpg

[edit]

No FOP for sculptures in Finland. Powers (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by D-Kuru: no FOP in Finland


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

File:Salma_Malik.jpg

[edit]

No longer used, outdated Mustafa54 (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Seems to be a photo you took of en:Salma Malik, who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about her. We also don't seem to have any other images of this woman. --Simonxag (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salma_Malik.jpg

[edit]

Mustafa54 wrote in a new deletion request "Owner requestd deletion."

 Keep As above, it's a useful picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Mustafa54, why do you want to have it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio, the person in the picture has asked me to remove this picture and uplaod another one. If I no longer want this picture to be used by anyone, what do I do?
The most important thing was, that you gave us this reason/rationale for the deletion. Did you already upload the other one? --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio, The other one has not been uploaded yet. Sorry but I a little confused about this deletion thing. Will the picture be delted on the request of the owner or some other reason has to be provided? Like will this picture be delted as per the request of the owner?
It goes like this: by uploading an image under a free license, you sort of relinquished your say over the image. However, as we value our uploaders, if an uploader provides a rationale reason for his deletion request, a deletion out of courtesy is possible. But it is not an automatism, as any interested user can take part in this discussion that will usually be open for 7 days and then decided by an admin. (To identify your own comment, could you "sign" them by adding --~~~~ ). --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks alot for the info. One last thing, will you decide if the file is to be deleted or any admin will do that? --Mustafa54 (talk)
Any admin. Likely not me, because I'm already part in the discussion. A tip: uploading the other image will increase the likelyhood that your wish a granted. (but it is not a condition!) --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Uploader should now make good on his commitment to upload a new picture. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Proms-albert-hall-04.jpg

[edit]

I suppose photographer is this http://www.mykreeve.net/ Michael Reeve. Why would this image be for free? Please clarify. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File description indicates that this was transferred here from en.wiki, where it was uploaded by User:MykReeve. I don't know whether that person is identical with the one you linked to, but if that is the case, the identity of the user should ideally be confirmed via OTRS. I don't really see a reason to delete here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepOops, didn't notice that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from a time when we had neither semi-automated transfer to Commons from local Wikipedias, nor the Information template. I added the template, and hence it should be clearer.  Keep We have thousands of users where username=real name and cannot and need not check all of them with OTRS tickets if there is no obvious need. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Avi (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rushka_Bergman.jpg

[edit]

Not sufficient source information to confirm that this image is in fact PD Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{copyvio|Copyright was mislabeled}}

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ludgrove.jpg

[edit]

http://www.ludgrove.net/Contact_Details/Discalimer.php says Text and images posted on our site may not be reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. Please follow Commons:OTRS procedure. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automobile manufacturer logos

[edit]

I hereby request all non-{{PD-ineligible}} marked files in Category:Automobile manufacturer logos and Category:Porsche emblems deleted, because it were derivative works of non-free logos.

  •  Keep; strong keep, this is clearly an "ideological" issue (on wikipedia we'd call this "pointy editing"). if purists want to fight this out, let it be done property, in an open community-wide debate & vote/consensus. this mass-nom is improper procedure, bordering on vandalism, & the uploaders were not notified of the nominations on their talk pages. i only found this because i was checking a file i'd uploaded for another purpose.
as re the points raised: 1. it's not copyright, it's trademark in this case. 2. images depicting a manufacturer's logo "in situ" i.e. on their product are legit for a wide variety of reasons (freedome of panorama comes to mind :P). i believe that somewhere on wikimedia, there is precedent how we deal with this kind of question, but i'm not going to bother digging it up just for this nom. the mass-nom was done improperly, the issues raised go far beyond what a simple deletion debate can cover, & this nomination should be closed as inappropriate Lx 121 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up: checked the nominating user's talk page User_talk:Christian_Giersing & it looks like this person has had problems with the deletion of automobile-related materials they've been moving over from wikip (not clear why, except that one image was claimed as a copyvio edit of a non-free image); so presumably this mass-nom is either a misunderstanding of policy, or an expression of frustration on the user's part.
This is not a "pointy editing". I think that these accusations inappropriate. The nominator nominated because he believes that logos require permission. Which they normally do! You should try to communicate with the user if you have a problem with his edits. --MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, please re-read the nominator's rationale: "I hereby request all non-{{PD-ineligible}} marked files in Category:Automobile manufacturer logos and Category:Porsche emblems deleted, because it were derivative works of non-free logos."
the nominator is seeking to implement a very wide-ranging policy , based on their own interpretations of the IP issues at stake, without citing any commons policy or precedents to support it. the nominator was also sloppy/careless in not notifying all of the affected editors, in not tagging everything properly, & in not considering other possible types of exemption, even if one supports their basic premise (which i do not).
if this rationale is accepted as policy, especially for mass deletions, the implications are enourmous. it could affect half the image files on commons!
if a user wants to make such a sweeping change, affecting commons as a whole, this is not the way to go about it.
also, just as a technical item, "pointy edits" are usually made by people who believe in what they are doing. that is not the issue. the issue is: that the proposed change & its ongoing implications would be massively disruptive to the project. the user, acting on their good-faith beliefs, should have sought other means to implement their proposed change of policy (& should have sought to engage in an open debate within the community, before any such "implementation").
Lx 121 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not all images in this category could be a problem. It would be better to make a list of the logos in question so we know excactly which of the logos that is really nominated for deletion. If you notice then nominater only put the DR on some of the images in the category. And the two mentioned above is not nominated. --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up; 4 things:

1. again, the primary issue here is trademark not copyright; for some of the markings included in this category, it is questionable whether they would even be considered distinct enough to be copyrightable.

2. the majority of the images depict the manufacturer's logo "in situ" i.e.: on their product , which is fair game; the legal issues would only be a consideration here if one created an image of the logo outside the context of the manufacturer's (legit) product(s), signage, etc. and/or applied the logo to unlicensed products. there is even some leeway, legally speaking, in media depictions of "counterfeit" products, as documentation of same.

we don't go around deleting every media file that has a manufacturer's product markings visible in it (& consider the implications carefully, if we were to implement such a policy... ).

3. this mass-nom was done sloppily & improperly. i have an image that was nominated as a part of this, & i did not receive any notice of the nomination. i only found the tag by accident, when i was checking my file for something else. how many other "interested parties" have not been given notice of the debate going on here?

4. the central issue raised is far too big, in its implications for the wikimedia commons project, to be decided in this manner.

if nobody can find (& cite) clear & definitive precedent within commons policy, then the matter needs to be put to a community-wide discussion & vote and/or referred to the wikimedia office/legal team.

it is not appropriate to implement such a potentially far-reaching policy decision through the back door, with a decision made by one person, or a handful of people, in one deletion debate.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Avi (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Business.png

[edit]

Derivative work based on the microsoft office clip-art - the original content is not licensed under GFDL, the usage of the original in this new work is far too much and not de minimis. Martin H. (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Business.png

[edit]

Stock photo from various websites such as here. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-B.jpg

[edit]

low quality Merrmaidmaker (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate request) low quality --Merrmaidmaker (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Author request, unused. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fractal-Mermaid-Type-A.png

[edit]

low quality Merrmaidmaker (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate request) low quality --Merrmaidmaker (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Author request, unused. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panobanluk.jpg

[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banja_Luka_vue_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.jpg Tonka (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Redundant and low res--Fanghong (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karl schaper.JPG

[edit]

better pciture will be uploaded. Suet yyp (talk · contribs)

ok I did. Suet yyp (talk · contribs)

Deleted / Uploader reqest--Fanghong (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Una chingana, siglo XIX.jpg

[edit]

Requested by uploader User:Quintupeu corrected malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galvarino.jpg

[edit]

requested by uploader User:Quintupeu corrected malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paulini_Curuenavuli_-_Eastland.jpg

[edit]

Only 10 images on this flickr source. No clear evidence the flickrowner is the copyright owner. Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. We really have nothing "to work on". But as Leoboudv says this user has more similar images. Tineye gave no hits either of crop or uncropped version on Flickr. So let's asume the best until someone finds evidence saying otherwise. MGA73 (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg

[edit]

Heine died in 1948 --195.93.60.6 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. File moved to EnWiki, where is may be hosted as public domain in the US. File may be found at w:File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg where it is tagged not to be moved to the commons. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Train/Czech

[edit]

I have nothing against idea of gallery but this version is useless. --Dezidor (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you move it to Trains from the Czech Republic, all is fine.  Keep 78.55.3.252 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP remark, but I'd pick Trains of the Czech Republic. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, gallery was renamed and expanded. Podzemnik (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geschändetehostie.jpg

[edit]

Delete per reason "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - I don't see an educational purpose which this picture serves. --Saint-Louis (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  •  Keep i do see a purpose to illustrate the fact, that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads. useful to illustrate on paganism, satanism, etc. (bad photo though) Schmelzle (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Nobody can really guess what's has happen with it. You can't illustrate that procedure. Also the result could be fake etc. Not very useful and necessary for understanding the thread/article. It is only a discussion influenced by ideology... nothing else -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It would be very helpful to know where this came from, but I agree with Schmelzle; the very illustration of the fact that someone has a framed item labeled Geschändete Hostie is by itself interesting and educational.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Quality is terrible --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Probably illegal photo according to § 167 German criminal code. No encyclopädic value. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The act of descrecation might be illegal under §167 (if done in a manner likely to disturb the service). The depiction may be illegal if considered likekly to offend religous practices. Neither of the two question should be considered here, as most images here are illegal somewhere on Earth. On the basis of the poor quality of the image and questions surronding the intentions of the author, which presumably are not educational, I suggest to delete the image. --Arcudaki (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - § 167 German criminal code has absolutely no relevancy for Wikimedia Commons -- thankfully! --Melanom (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Not useful for encyclopedial use, possible fake, tasteless - most of the arguments are already mentioned. Picture of poor quality and no educational use of intentionally offending picture, so no value for any article in wikipedia. --Tarantelle (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - otherwise reupload to German Wikipedia. Some guys just want to get rid of this picture out of no reason, nor the possibility given by the rules there. Problems there should be cleared there before moved and bloated in Commons. Oh... and Wikipedia/Commons is a divine service? Defchris (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete commons is not the private image hoster for admins on de.wp. No encyclopaedic value, because the result of desecration - the desecrated host - and in this quality isn't illustrating anything. It's tasteless, too. And, if it is a fake, it'd be even more irrelevant. --Hullorio (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I welcome all the new editors from the German Wikipedia, and hope you'll stick around and makes some contributions to Wikimedia Commons beyond this Deletion Request. May I note that Commons does not solely collect images for Wikipedia; strictly speaking, encyclopedic value is not the standard for Commons. Nor is "tasteless" a deletion reason. If there are questions surrounding the intentions of the author, it would be nice to have them mentioned here, as it's clear to us Commons users that we're getting the tail end of a larger argument and nobody is bothering to explain just what the hell has already gone on with this. As it is, I think claiming that it's "intentionally offending" is unproven.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: The original discussion can be found here, where you also can find the information that the user who uploaded the image on the German Wikipedia intends to offend. Anyway, my reason to delete is not the (subjective) offensiveness of the image but the fact that the images serves no educational purpose. There are a lot of things which can be put into frames and it cannot be deduced from the image "that some people do keep and frame desecrated altar breads". The picture is therefore only of private interest. --Saint-Louis (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep "Qualitiy" is no reason except the image's content would be absolute unrecognisable. "Tasteless" or any moral or religious outrage is no reason as there is no "Faugh!" in an encyclopedic context. §§ 166 or 167 StGB (German Criminal Code) is no reason as this image is a kind of artwork, however good or bad in quality, and therefore covered by freedom of art and opinion. In addition Commons is not a courtyard. Furthermore it is absolutely okay to upload private images for serveral reasons e.g. illustrating user pages. Finally there is no proof that the image's author uploaded the image in order to offend someone. That is a mere allegation. --Eva K. is evil 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The image is just fuzzy and blurred, it is difficult to identify it. There is no evidence for an educational purpose, the intention of the uploader was to offend in a discussion about secession from the church: [2] at 00:53, 17. Jul. 2009 (CEST). During the discussion of deletion request on de.wp the image was suddendly moved to commons without any consensus. This is why we are discussiong this deletion request. For catholics the image is very offending (vide [3] and [4]) but I assume this alone would not justify a deletion on Commons. But the image is also an act of intolerance and disrespect. I do not think that an image of a desecrated qur'an would be accepted - at least I do not find any images of defiled copies of the holy book of the muslim world on Commons. For catholics the consecrated host has - at least - equal importance. As already mentioned an educational purpose isn't there, so please delete it. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While we're going on about intolerance and disrespect, can we remove all copies of images that imply that non-believers will suffer an eternity of torment? As a sign of the great tolerance and respect here, in , one commenter says "Der Künstler wird, meines Erachtens nach, sowieso brennen." ("The artist will, in my opinion anyway, burn.")--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated above, quality is no reason for deletion. Even if the image is not of the best quality, I can identify the object quite well.
  • Please dont's argue with the Quran. Any image that displays Mohammed is very offending for muslims. However, that is no reason to delete such images from Commons. I consider such arguments simply as an unholy coalition between religions to suppress uncomfortable and unwanted opinions, and afterwards they continue to bash each other's heads in.
  • Also there's no concensus necessary to move images from a local project to Commons.
  • --Eva K. is evil 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to your last point, but your other statements are incorrect. If you want to, I could buy a qur'an and defile it. Let's expect the reactions. Of course I would call it art, too. I do think the thing with: IMO the artist will burn is simply used in a facetious way. incorrect, v.i.--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) The intention of uploading the image was not to illustrate, simply to provocate. I was not talking about images of Mohammed, but about defiled qur'ans. I know you like to quote others incorrectly to substantiate your statements, but anyhow this isn't fair. On commons, an educational purpose must be visible. Where is this purpose? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It was in fact uploaded to illustrate and has been used in de:Hostienfrevel. It was placed in the article on December 8, 2008 and was removed again on February 16th, 2009 with this [5] edit. So the image has been in article use for over 2 months and was not uploaded for provocation issues primarily. Schmelzle (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for devalueing my statements as incorrect. I think it's a kind of religious arrogance to claim the image's author will burn. And of course considering the burning of heretics at the stake in former times your statement is an unacceptable threat. So don't be blasphemic in the meaning of your own belief and leave that decision to the god which you believe in. --Eva K. is evil 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say attacking and devalueating the belief of one's oppenent is not the finest way to handle contentual controverersies. But it's not infrequent when someone isn't able to contribute to discussions in a normal and appropriate way. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Let's expect the reactions" is not an argument. We should not give to threats of any sort. Frankly, the fact that "tolerance and respect" tends to come after physical and legal threats doesn't convince me of the reality of tolerance here. (Yes, physical threats; what exactly do you think it means to be set on fire? Whether you wait to the afterlife or not, it's still a hideous event, and the fact that you can consider it facetious, or "cleverly amusing", I find somewhat disturbing.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, before you continue to nag about other photographer's blurred images: File:2 Apple blossoms.JPG, File:Faded tulip.JPG. --Eva K. is evil 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, deletion requests: done. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On de: or en:wp this would have been a violation of en:WP:POINT. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think? It was just a broad hint because you insisted on the image's low quality: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Finally it was your deletion request on your own photos, not mine. --Eva K. is evil 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Argumentiere und agiere nicht für etwas, das du eigentlich nicht willst." "Do not argue and act for sth you don't want." --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to teach me? --Eva K. is evil 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the "he'll burn statement" I would like to point out that the a) the suposed threat is not physical but metaphysical and the fire is methaphorical. b) Martin-vogel does state, quite clearly, that be does not share the belief in a afterlife. Therefore to threaten to him with damnation in afterlife is as threathening as telling me that aliens are going to kidnap me if I leave the window open: Not very threathening at all. c) It was not said in jest.
    With regard to the image I would point out that if image quality is not a reason for deletion on commons (as stated above) then it should be kept, as the other reason "offensive" is not applicable: The act of desecrating a host (which is the body of christ) is pretty much the ultimate sin in catholic belief. The depiction of any sinfull act is not offensive however. (Otherwise gothic churches would need a lot of whitewash). In other words: Impaling a kitten is not o.k. A clear, sharp and well lit image of someone impaling a kitten should be kept under these criteria.--Arcudaki (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are refering to "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." In the section "Examples" of Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use. Correct ? --Arcudaki (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" - in other cases this was no reason for deletion. -- smial (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This seems to be the extension of some personal ideological feuds on the German Wikipedia. It is the only file of its kind in its category which shows an actual host, rather than a 16th century woodcut illustration. While the means by which the host was allegedly desecrated is unclear, and the photo is somewhat blurred, deleting it without adequate substitutes seems to me to be more a case of ideological restriction of an illustration of an artwork because of objections to the content. If the photo is not used at all by any language Wikipedia, perhaps one can argue that it serves no legitimate educational purpose, but if the file is used to illustrate one or more Wikipedia articles, that is in itself a legitimate educational purpose.--Bhuck (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not show anything. Since the process isn't depicted it illustrates nothing. I could also take a cracker or wafer and crumble it and would get the same result. Educational purpose isn't given, because the image solely shows some framed crumbs. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not illustrating the desecration of a host, but purports to show a desecrated host (i.e. illustrate what a host looks like after having been desecrated). If crumbling is a form of desecration and you crumble a consecrated wafer, you have a desecrated host. That an unconsecrated wafer and a consecrated wafer have the same outward and physical form (and differ only in their inward and spiritual grace) is not the fault of the photographer, but lies in the nature of the host itself.--Bhuck (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The very specific claims about what this image pretends to show cannot be verified. (For starters, crumbling a non-consecrated wafer doesn’t translate to desecration of an eucharistic host.) By hosting this image with its current filename and description, Commons would propagate unsubstantiated claims that may mislead the public and may even damage Commons' own credibility.
In addition, there is no information about location and other circumstances such as the absolutely strange (not to say, insane) kind of presentation. The photo seems to show a sort of exhibit. But in what institution it might have been exhibited, in a stalinist era dungeon, the grand orient freemason temple of Paris, or Fred Phelps’ church? Of course, due to the german-language caption none of that would fit. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 3-dimensional "artwork", as the frame as well as the shadows below the wafer/host particles show. --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useless to say that Avemundi is one of the leaders of the project:catholicism on it.wiki, a project well known for defending christian related POV in many articles. Note that a call to arms was submitted on the talk of the project, so expect more POV (and uninformed) votes --Jollyroger (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the image has no educational value. It is prohibited by some national laws. In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that (freedom of expression is not unlimited). That might lead to a partial obscuration by postal police and I think this could diminish the reputation of wikimedia projects. Useless to say that Progetto:Cattolicesimo does not defend any POV (otherwise it would be banned) and anybody can contribute to the project. The aim of the project is to develope and coordinate articles about Catholicism. Italian wikipedia has about 100 projects covering many subjects.--Avemundi (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Italy it is a criminal offense to publish material like that: pure bullshit. Even blasphemy isn't a crime any more, just a minor infraction.
There is absolutely no legal means for the Postal Police to obscurate a website for that "crime", you are just trying to scare people with false statements.
Even if an image like this would be illegal in italy (it isn't and you are lying), it wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. --Jollyroger (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you vote here? --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because *somebody* has created the page and *somebody else* was so kind to advise it.wikipedia (and es.wikipeda, and en.wikipedia, and pt.wikipedia...). Thank you 92.74.122.220--Hal8999 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the infomation. This sort of cross-wiki messaging isn't really very constructive. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Hal8999 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the notifications. I didn't know they were so unpopular. I'm sorry for any inconvienience. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment. Just as a reminder to all and especially to those who may have become aware of this discussion by messages on their local project: deletion discussions on Commons, similar to other Wikimedia projects, are not like political elections and are not decided by simple vote counting, but by the strength or validity of presented arguments. Therefore it doesn't make much sense, just add more plain Keep or Delete votes.
An additional hint: if you want to weaken your own position, then you should heavily and personally attack those who have a different opinion than you. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a matter of personal attack, that's a matter of knowing the motivations behind some votes, and counting the whole "call to arms" deal into the equation. --Jollyroger (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I forgot that you are a pure or abstract human being who has no personal motivations at all; ever heard about w:WP:AGF? Anyway, by reading my first comment you might have concluded that (alleged) "motivations" are rather irrelevant for the outcome of an rfd. And, though I don't welcome cross-wiki notifications of that type, calling this comment-less link "a call to arms" is rather POV, only it's yours. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
understood, mr. I feel like a pure or abstract human being but I accuse you to be one so no one notices my POV. Anyway, I see you did not get the message, please feel free to continue your rant alone. Other users have been warned of what's going on. --Jollyroger (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Delete Imagine that someone puts on commons an image of your mother and names it: "A prostitute": the woman's son must feel offended and must ask for removing of that image. The same way we christian are offended if anyone load on common a dissacrant image of something we love very much. I cannot understand why should we keep images and other contributions whose only reason is to offend the sensibility of those who believe in Christ and in his presence in the Eucarist. DonPaolo (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It's offensive, and not useful per Wikipedia and other project. --Dongio (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Is not useful for Wikipedia. Not explicative. Any other offense to any religion, political leader, worldwide accepted political idea or even to atheism, should be avoided, to maintain a relaxed environment and peace of minds. --Giancarlo Rossi (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This picture ia a clear derivative work of somebody-else work (I mean the person who decided to put this "thing" inside the small picture), till now it's real author is unknown, lacking informations, without permission, clear copyright violation and of course of a questionable purpose. Nicola Romani (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I agree with Dongio. --HAL9000 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As foreseen, the call to arms got an effect. --Jollyroger (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has'nt been a call to arms, just an information. Even for you. Did you know about this DelReq before having read the notice? A call to arms would have been sth like: "The infidels attack us. Fight back." IIRC I didn't wrote this ...
--Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily there are people, like JollyRoger, who don't even need call to arms for defending our freedom of opinion; thank you for your taking care of it. But I'd still like to express my personal opinion by myself. And yes: of course is only my opinion, and I can assure that I don't consider it more important or better than the other's one; I just hope someone will find it useful for discussion or interesting to think on. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS an unholy alliance of religious warriors and djihadists from serveral local projects have been drummed to launch Wikimedia's Holy Inquisition and to fight free thinkers. --Eva K. is evil 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I actually saw the RfD before the message on the project talk, but became interested in it after seeing the abuse. the message was sent selectively to catholicism-related projects, so I can't really believe it was "just an information". The effect was to bring here the votes you see above, and you can see their motivations: we christian are offended . So what? --Jollyroger (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was an information intended to inform Users interested in catholicism-related topics, if you are interested in such the information reached you, didn't it? :-)
Why should one post information to projects not related to the subject of the DelReq? But I've already understood that such information isn't wanted to posted on talk-pages of projects. I'm sorry. I've already deleted these notifications. I won't do the same mistake another time. Please, I've commited an error, please apologize me. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I vote for deletion for two reason:
    • IMHO this photo doesn't add any educational value. I find the article Host desecration really interesting, educational and well documented. This photograph instead has no trace of documentation: it just depict a moldy wafer: without any documentation, to me it could simply be some badly conserved nougat processing waste. But feel free to consider "educational" this photo: I can assure it is the truly picture of the Holy Grail ;-)
    • IMHO there exist things that is right and useful to explain by words, but don't need to be shown explicitly. To me is a matter of sensibility, personal and towards other Wikipedia users. Some example: this for Algerian War (personally I find really interesting the information, but I consider those victims deserving of the largest compassion and respect: isn't explaining the torture only by words in the article educational enough?); this for article Dismemberment (isn't much better and respectful - I would say: "educational" - the painting of the actual wikipedia article?).
In a word, THIS [6] is what I mean for educational and documented about host desacration. IMHO a fully untrustable picture isn't.
Thanks for your time and patience, and sorry for the indelicate photo I've had to add to this post. --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Finally, I would thank smial: I didn't know the work (and the international criminal records) of Peter Klashorst before. I just wonder about why this "Shaven Genitalia" work should be more interesting than a photo of my shaven genitalia: I can assure that those are as "educational" as mine. But don't worry, I will take care of uploading a photo of mine, so enhancing the "educational" content of Commons, as soon as possible :p --Fredericks (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another italian user very active in pages about catholicesim, recently found using sockpuppets, suspected to be the reincarnation of a user banned for an unsusteinable catholic agenda, at his first appearance on Commons... Really no effects from the call to arms... --Jollyroger (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the informing other users diminish the value of their arguments? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes. This RfD has been "rigged" with a selective vote request, with open falsities about legality of the image, with POV arguments and with many other dirty tricks. I think people considering this RfD should know what's going on, and I feel I've do provide all the infos I have to do so.--Jollyroger (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a wonderful example for canvassing which IIRC is absolutely unwelcome on WM. --Eva K. is evil 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that you inform catholics and atheists equally? Obviously you don't. And even if some users argue on a catholic viewpoint - for catholics, as you already know, this image is really violative - the arguments, e.g. those of Fredericks, are not diminished only because he seems to be catholic - I don't know exactly. Could you please tell me why the arguments of catholics have less value than those of atheists or agnostics or protestants? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments of banned sockpuppet-using users have less value than those of other users. It's frustrating how you picked out the religion issue and left the rest alone. In any case, w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here, as well; whether or not you find it "violative" isn't relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry can you say something about the true author (still unknown) of this subject? The persons who took the picture is not the same author right, so this work is a clear violation of copyright, lacking informations, without permission and must be deleted for this clear reasons. --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why you say The persons who took the picture is not the same author? How do you know? Is it really that difficult to buy a 3$ wooden frame, a printed paper sheet and a wafer and put them together?
I see stated author: Martin Vogel. Original uploader was Martin-vogel at de.wikipedia. Martin is a long time user, with lot of experience on his side (more than 4 year at the time of original upload): supposing he does not know the project basics is quite arrogant from you. --Jollyroger (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because after having reverted, and having seen the use of two different cameras

  • from Eva K.:

Produttore fotocamera NIKON CORPORATION
Modello fotocamera NIKON D300
Autore Eva Kroecher Informazioni sul copyright Eva Kroecher
Tempo di esposizione 1/25 s (0,04)
Rapporto focale f/2,5
Sensibilità ISO 1.600
Data e ora di creazione dei dati 20:53, 13 nov 2009
Distanza focale obiettivo 50 mm

  • From: Martin-vogel to de:Wiki & Eingangskontrolle to: Commons

Produttore fotocamera EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Modello fotocamera KODAK C340 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Tempo di esposizione 1/10 s (0,1)
Rapporto focale f/2,7
Sensibilità ISO 160
Data e ora di creazione dei dati 10:46, 11 lug 2008
Distanza focale obiettivo 5,6 mm

  • ...we have NO informations about the location of the exposition of this work
  • ...we have NO links to the previous german page on wiki, just a link to German Wiki home page.
  • ...Because "selber gemacht" means "Self-made", so "Self-made" what? the picture? the Frame? the work? Than... sorry ...How was it possibile to Eva K. take a new picture to the same subject whit a different camera???Nicola Romani (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even if Fungo velenoso is a sockpuppet, the arguments of other users aren't diminished because a contra-voter is a sock-puppet. If he is. I dunno. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had a long discussion on it.wiki because a Jollyroger's (whose else?) personal friend suspected Fungo velenoso to be a SP. The community rejected the charge, so Fungo velenoso is still a member who brings his fruitful contribution to the project. I am personally astonished by Jollyroger's attempts to diminish members' reputation adding that they are active on Catholicism project; since that project is one of the finest parts of it.wiki and the subject of the project is related to the topic we discuss here. --Avemundi (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, explain what you mean with "personal friend": it sound offensive.
Second, Fungo Velenoso himself admitted the use of a shared account and sockopuppeting.
Third, the quality of Fungo Velenoso fruitful contributions is questionable, since he has a straight catholic-POV approach. But this is not the place to discuss that.
Fourth: Catholicism project built its reputation itself. It can be called "finest part" only from someone ho has a deep interested in keeping christian POV on the enciclopedia. We see ourselves the kind of contributions from that project in this page.
--Jollyroger (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather expect an RfD discussion than a kind of Spanish Inqusition. But it's nice to watch you wildly speculating about cameras and locations and makers. However, there are some quite simple answers far from any dark secrets, mysteries and conspiracies. --Eva K. is evil 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that having Blackcat as a personal friend is offensive, well, it's your business. I read on your user page you personally know him. If I were you, I'd think about my own contribution and POV before questioning anybody else's. --Avemundi (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Eva K. This is not an inquisition, we just ask you to provide the lacking info requested above about the image. Is this a problem? --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete First of all I can't see any educational purpose; in second instance there are lacking infos about its copyright status. In last analisys there are two completely different versions of the same subject, that looks to be taken with two different cameras. --Krepideia § in fructus labore 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement "Much ado about nothing" of Eva Kroecher on the talk page of Martin Vogel administrator on the german wikipedia:
                            **************************************************************
Der Sturm der Entrüstung im Wasserglas ist ja nun vorüber bzw. nach Commons abgezogen. Wenn Du es willst, kannst Du mir das Objekt gerne mal mitbringen, damit ich ein scharfes Bild davon mache. Dann bekommt die Entrüstung erst die richtige Würze. --Eva K. ist böse 18:28, 3. Nov. 2009 (CET)
Translation: the tempest in a teapot is now over or rather moved to Commons. If you want, you can bring me the object for making a sharpener photo of it. Then the indignation/story will get more and the right spice -- Eva K.      is evil 18:28, 3. Nov. 2009 (CET)
                            **************************************************************
Das theatrum absurdum bekommt Dimensionen. Nachdem die Unheilige Inquisition der Wikipedia zusammengetrommelt wurde – Katholiken der Wikipedias aller Länder, vereinigt euch! –, wird nun wild spekuliert. Wie konnte es nur möglich sein, daß ersten ich das Objekt in der Lage war zu fotografieren, d.h. wo es sich wohl befinden möge, und wie das mit einer gänzlich anderen Kamera ging, die mir wohl zur Verfügung stand. Kann es sein, daß etwas dran ist an der Erkenntnis, daß religiöser Eifer den Logiksektor vernebelt und damit folgerichtiges Denken blockiert wird? Nur eine Frage. Grüße und alles Gute für 2010. -- Eva K. is evil 11:16, 29. Dez. 2009 (CET)
Translation: That theatrum asurdum gets (new) dimensions. After calling the unholy Inquisition of Wikipedia over - Catholics of all wikipedias of the world, unite! - now they speculate heavy. How could I be able to take a photograph of the object, that means where could be the object and how could this be happen with another camera, which I had it at my disposal. Could be the insight become true, that religious enthusiasm can obscure the logical part of brain and that can block logical thinking? It is only a question. Greetings and happy New Year! -- Eva K. is evil 11:16, 29. Dez. 2009 (CET)
                            **************************************************************
These words of Eva K. is evil are standing for themselves. I miss respect and understanding in this discussion. Wikipedia is no battlefield. I just wanna quote myself :It is only a discussion influenced by ideology... nothing else -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC) -- Jlorenz1 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an idea that you are my secret follower in that matter and would spread my words around. Bingo! --Eva K. is evil 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just ask to be intellectually honest, This pics (The author of the work is still unknow...), as stated on the template, was uploaded on german Wiki by Martin Voegel with a different model of cameras, as I've demonstrated, then uploaded on commons by Eingangskontrolle, then updated (but as we can see, its a completely different image) by Eva K., and now she now stated having another cameras on her disposal... Sorry but we are not kids! --Nicola Romani (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*LOL* Is that really a serious question for you? How about some minutes of logical thinking? --Eva K. is evil 10:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a collaborative project, and you don't seem to be collaborative, are you kidding us? --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess with over 800 photos of my own on Commons I'm collaborative enough, whatever you think. So where're your contributions beyond this discussion? To me it's more that you're kidding yourself with making a fuss about irrelevant questions for which you could find the answer yourself. Finally, this RfD discussion is about the photo's content and not about the camera that it has taken or it's respective owner. However, the orchestration of religious indignation in this discussion demonstrates clearly how strong religious lobbies try to influence the project and it's neutrality. --Eva K. is evil 14:23,
How it worked with the host
...About some minutes of logical thinking: Sorry but as stated on the template ...the pictures of the UNKNOWN AUTHOR WORKS was uploaded on german Wiki by Martin Voegel with a different model of cameras, as demonstrated, (...but nobody say who made that work...) then uploaded here on commons by Eingangskontrolle (with NO links to the previous german page on wiki, just a link to German Wiki home page), then updated (but as we can see, its a completely different image took with a different camera and obviously by Eva K.), and now you are saying to have another cameras on yor disposal... Sorry but don't you think to kidding us? That's is waht seems... you are the secondary author of this picture of somebody else work (UNKNOW). This is enough to me, This image is a DERIVATIVE WORK OF SOMEBODY ELSE WORK (BECAUSE ITS REAL ATHOR IS UNKNOWN) and this are the reasons why the image must be deleted, Religion doesn't matter to me, but seem the opposite to you! Goodbye. --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to know that text in all capital letters means shouting. There's no reason to shout at me. The author/creator of the threedimensonal work on the photo, i.e. the host in the frame, isn't unknown. For your unterstanding I created a little workflow diagram, may it help. --Eva K. is evil 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this graphic shows that Martin-vogel created a so-called artwork he wanted to share with the world. He thought, Wikipedia would be the right place to do so. (It then has been moved to Commons.) It's questionable if this is in the project's scope, beeing a "self-created artwork without obvious educational use". --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We have an author for the photography and for the artwork, too, so there is no problem concerning copyrights. I'm shure that we can trust in Eva K. when she says that she is the author of the picture. The new version of the picture is better concerning quality. For this reasons we don't have to consider the older votes which are based on these problems. So the question is, if we are willing to accept an artwork, which stands in opposition to some Christian religious rules. I think we can tolerate this picture. We will get real problems if we start to judge the contents of artworks from a religious point of view. So I will decide to keep the picture, if there are no convincing arguments for deletion in the next three days. --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, of course this isn't a place to delete pictures because of religious offensiveness. The copyright problem seems to be resolved. So now we have to consider - as already stated - if the image is within the Project's scope. The artwork, obviously created by Martin-vogel himself, doesn't seem to have "obvious educational use". This is why I think to image should be deleted. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good example of what people will make death threats about in the modern world. I can see a place for it on w:Host desecration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The German site concerning host desecration can be found here. To be honest, I would not propose to use the picture of Martin Vogel to illustrate this article, because I don't like the artwork, but that is my personal point of view. The main reason for me to treat this case carefully is the fear that "educational use" and "project scope" could easily become instruments of censorship concerning religious questions. I think we could accept the picture as an element of our category Host desecration, where it demonstrates that the subject is still a matter of discussion for some people.
Addendum for the German users: § 167, if you read the text carefully, there is no legal problem concerning this picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles in the wikipedias mainly speak about the medieval suspection (which was not correct, horrible and cruel) of Jews to desecrate hosts. All wikipedias I know don't accept intern discussions as a proof of relevancy. I don't think Commons does (in this case: educational use). --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Mbdortmund, you know as well as I know that a lot of of Wikipedia-editors whose articles and changes are deleted or reverted speak about so-called "censorship". They may be 9/11-truthlers or moon-landing-specialists, communists as well as neonazis, people neglecting climate change or wanting to delete other theories about our climate, catholics and protestants, agnostics as well as atheists, muslims, Israel haters and lovers, capitalists and socialists. They all spoke about censorship on Wikipedia (even about blockwart-admins) hiding the truth or preferring a certain group. This is why I don't like the word "censorship", only for nations like PR China (or Iran, N-Corea) it is surely the correct term. Recently, on :de , a association of abuse-victims against blocks of Internet websites has been deleted because of irrelevancy. All of their promoters talked about censorship, although this wasn't the reason for the decision. On Commons some images are deleted because of not beeing within the project's scope. Some of them are not liked by certain social groups. But they haven't been deleted because of any offensiveness for some people (this is certainly given here, as we can see) but because of the project's rules. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)edit: 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Who proves that the host is consecrated? If it is not consecrated, it is no disgrace! Maybe it is only one easy wafer! And the whole one is a fake ... I think this picture is a better example of a desecrated host ... -- DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Atlan: Discussions about censorship are difficult, that's right, but nobody would care about this picture, if it would not concern religious questions.
  • @ DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter: Artworks are always a kind of fake, it's no criterium if the things you see on a painting really happened or not. The picture you proposed concerns historical cases and religious legends, but the picture we are talking about, is about actual problems with religions, so it could illustrate the paragraph about the problem today. The picture was uploaded, because Martin Vogel used it on his user page in order to illustrate his position against Christian belief in miracles when I understood his intentions right, and I think this is an acceptable reason for an upload, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would have cared about the MOGIS-affair, if blog.fefe.de hadn't written about it and if it hadn't concerned a certain political subject.
There is also another section of the german penal code: §166 which could apply. But I think here we only care for US-American laws; the servers (and the WMF) are in Florida. sect. 871.04 could apply. (IANAL)
In your answer to DesLöschteufelsGroßmutter you have said that Martin-vogel uploaded the image with offensive intentions. I think this should be heeded, too.
If we use the image to illustrate the article we would violate our guidelines constating debates in WP don't mean relevancy.
The image cannot be realistically used to illustrate the article or the category, neither is there shown a typical desecrated host, nor is it proven that the crumbled bread(?) in the frame is a desecrated host. Our criteria say that original research is forbitten. The use of the image in Wikipedias would be a *paragon* of original research.
If the artwork per se was relevant in just one Wikipedia, the image could be used with a proved educational value. ATM the image only shows a artwork of an irrelevant artist, who is admin on :de. AFAIK images of such artworks normally aren't used to illustrate articles. An other educational use hasn't been shown yet.
You've said the image had been used on Martin-vogel's userpage. I wasn't able to detect such a version. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to precedent post I'd like to add a more specific explanation about my view on point 4 of this /|\ post:
You wrote that the image was about actual problems with religions. Since there hasn't been a public debate about the Roman-Catholic Church's view of transsubstantiation for some time the image doesn't show an element about current disputes or problems with the Catholic Religion.
Finally, to use another way of argumentation, the image doesn't fit into the Commons with this title and/or in this category, it would be misplaced because the neutral, secular Wikimedia cannot declare or prove that sth is disgraced or desecrated. ("Desecrated" has as latin root the word sacer, meaning holy. (Un-)Holiness is (regarded form a neutral perspective) pure POV.) --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you read w:Host desecration, you notice that in 2008, there was a public argument over the issue, where PZ Myers got death threats over his offer to desecrate a host. Your argument about desecration not being NPOV is cute, but a little silly; we all know what we're talking about when we say "host desecration", and while the literal meaning of the word "desecration" may be arguable, not a single person on this thread besides you has objected to the phrase, despite several of us believing the underlying concept to be pretty silly. We all know what we're talking here, and there's no other clear and simple way to speak of the concept.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbdortmund&Prosfilaes ...So ...let me understand, if I will upload a picture showing a man or a woman having sex (because in certain countries is legal and US laws are differets from a State to other) or raping a minor or a babies to illustrate it on wikipedia, should be keep? Ok quite interesting, lets upload such kind of pictures!!! Will be a good reputation to Commons! ....People votes against it's value must be respected, I voted so, and I never talked about religion, just about its educational value here on commons and about its copyright status... But here it seems that if you vote pro deletion you are an a religieous affiliate, sorry but I'm not and I strongly regret this title, ....but, on the opposite side, it also now seems clear Martin voegel POV, and this POV had a great relevance in this case and it make it clear his Non Neutral Point of View... As stated before, Religion doesn't matter to me! For this reasons the image must be deleted for an irrilevant encyclopedic value and due it's Non Neutral Point of View intentions purpose when it was made and for its past use! --Nicola Romani (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vstup_do_súdnej_sály_Bordeaux.jpg

[edit]

With no freedom of panorama in France, it seems to me we must reluctantly delete this. Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 13:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vstup_sudny_dvor_Bordeaux.jpg

[edit]

With no freedom of panorama in France, it seems to me we must reluctantly delete this. Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The_Little_Mermaid-tourists.jpg

[edit]

Following this deletion request, I'm nominating the original picture. Having more content around it doesn't change the fact that the statue is the main subject, so de minimis doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but the statue really is not that many pixels across, especially compared to the picture width. so are you sure de minimis does not apply? Thue (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (image uploader, who reluctantly did agree with the other image deletions)[reply]
I'm pretty sure, yes. If you have a look at the example given in COM:DM, you'll see that if the [statue] forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [statue], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the [statue] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the [statue] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. Pixel counts are not a criteria here. –Tryphon☂ 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. The inclusion of the copyrighted work is not incidental. The file is used on 32 projects – in all of them to illustrate the statue rather than tourists, as far as I can tell. Basically, if one can use a photo to illustrate an article about a subject, the subject's inclusion in the photo isn't de minimis. The lack or limitation of freedom of panorama in some countries is unfortunate, but it's not something that we should try to circumvent through "clever" use of perceived loopholes. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's very usefulness as a picture of the statue on multiple Wikipedias shows that the statue is the picture's subject. --Simonxag (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I believe that this can be kept. Maybe could be renamed "tourism in Denmark". The description could focus on the architect of the ugly building in the background. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a prime example of trying to circumvent lack of freedom of panorama through "clever" use of loopholes. It's obvious given the usage of the file that the purpose is to illustrate the copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can call it "Langelinien pavillon" by Nils and Eva Koppel, built 1954. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we crop it to change that to be the main subject. Again, as evidenced by how the image is used and described, the curret subject is a copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the description and I propose to rename this File:Langelinie.jpg; so  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also remove it from articles about the statue? Or at least address the issue? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete anytime you have a photo where everyone is looking at something, the eye is going to drawn to that item. As long as you have the statue in the foreground of an image with a bunch of tourists looking at it, it can't be de minimis. Pixellating the statue, while horrible, would solve the problem, though not necessarily giving us a photo anyone wants to use. Of course, that last fact means that the statue isn't de minimis. If you actually want to claim the Langelinien pavillon as the subject, crop it so that we get all those distracting tourists gawking at something that isn't the pavillon out of the picture.
    I could argue in the context of a book on architecture or psychology of tourism or photography that the statue is de minimis; if we use it in articles on the Little Mermaid, any hope of that that goes out the window.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not sure about commons policy on this general issue, but as a non-profit organisation the Wikimedia foundation is free to use this image as much as we like, as Danish copyright very explicitly states that royalties only can be collected if the work is used commercially "Bestemmelsen i 1. pkt. finder ikke anvendelse, såfremt kunstværket er hovedmotivet og gengivelsen udnyttes erhvervsmæssigt. ". Frankly I don't see how that differs from the thousands of images we have under some fuzzy notion of fair use, we already have a situation where you cannot reuse images on commons indiscriminately, so why practice it here? Sertmann (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so not on commons, but can't we move the image to Wikipedia then? Sertmann (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. The statue was unveiled in 1913, so it should be just fine under US law (and life+50 in 2010), so en.Wiki will host it as a free image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Flag_of_Ghaznavid_Empire.svg

[edit]
also:

Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Seljuq Empire.svg: derivative work from [7], alleged to be historical but probably isn't, apparently a fantasy reconstruction ultimately going back to some (unknown) 20th-century author. Both unencyclopedic and likely a copyright problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep -strongly- They are historical flags and haven't copyright problem. A lot of old Turkish history books used these flags and they aren't reconstruction work. --.dsm. 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these are historical flags, then why is it that nobody, ever, in years, while these images have been re-uploaded and re-discussed and re-deleted multiple times, has come up with a decent reference for them? Note: the reference must show not just some verbal description that such-and-such a state used some kind of flag somehow showing this or that motive. It must show the actual design in this precise form and colour in an historical medieval attestation; or alternatively it must show it as a modern reconstruction that is old enough (e.g. published pre-1923) to be PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is also File:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif, which is a re-creation of the file that was deleted in the previous deletion request referenced above and belongs to the same series. I tagged it for speedy deletion as recreation of validly deleted material, but Dsmurat removed the deletion tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you two idiots need to relax .look at your own nations fake flags first before talking about turkish flags.

 Delete - It appears then that all the TRT invented flags are still copyrighted. If any of them are to be kept (eg. for being trivial), then the source and their fictional nature must be clearly indicated. --Latebird (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - I searched again but I didnt find them in "old" Turkish books and materials printed before 1969. Takabeg (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know the truth, but you deny it. The flags are real. There are many academic sources in Turkish but i didn't find English article about it. I know you can understand some Turkish but most of users can't understand it. --.dsm. 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bring them on. I'm sure Takabeg can read then, and my own Turkish will be sufficient to figure out most of it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murat, I understand Turkish language :) We discussed this issue with User:Lord Leatherface in Turkish Wikipedia. Yes, I know the truth. Most of them (except Ottoman's) were invented by TRT in 1969. If you want, you can show us academic articles whitten in Turkish language. I (We)'ll enjoy to read them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't refer Flag of Göktürks. I think you might confuse "Kurt başlı bayrakları" with Flag of Göktürks. That is not flag itself but flagpole = Kurt başlı tuğ (Chinese: 狼头纛 / 狼頭纛, pinyin: láng tóu dào). Atatürk knew Kurt başlı tuğ and used wolf (Bozkurt) as national symbol. In short, they are not same. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murat, a verbal description stating that Turkic tribes used some sort of wolf head symbolism is not enough. We need the source for this precise design: this precise shape of the wolf head, this precise orientation, this precise shape of the flag, these precise colours. If a 20th-century designer "reconstructed" a Göktürk flag merely on the basis of there was something about a wolf head, then his graphic implementation was still original enough to create his own copyright. The only way you can demonstrate this is not copyrighted is if you can show a visual representation of this precise design in a source from before 1923. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, all ahistorical (out of project scope) and copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Virtual_Earth_Prattenburg_(4).jpg

[edit]

"Source=Virtual Earth". Not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Prosfilaes. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KazanKremlin.gif

[edit]

No legend for numbers on map makes this useless. Also questionable copyright status 150.250.43.236 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legend would normally go in text, not image, so that image is usable across languages. Used on 9 Wikipedias, so the claim that it's "useless" is obviously off base. On the other hand, I have no idea on the licensing status, nor where the information would be to add the legend. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, questionable copyright status. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/11/02&oldid=35048406"