Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
2010 SAF Games official logo as seen here, but uploader claims own work and CC license. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Fair-use and copyright violation. ZooFari 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
copyvio, © 2002 Embassy of Lebanon, Washington DC. All rights reserved. 221.127.251.237 07:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW of a Pokemon, see COM:Fan art sугсго 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Shizhao. ZooFari 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No use, low quality. We have an SVG at File:Flag of Iceland.svg Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete Bad quality image, as per Commons:Deletion policy. Blond (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom Ezarateesteban 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
A prerelease, the names of cosmonauts are missing. File:Soyuz-TMA-17-Mission-Patch.png is the right one. --Ras67 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
fddfdf is a unreliable source this media has no evidence that it is not a copyivo. User:Gwynhaden
- Delete - Most likely a vandalism upload of a personal image. ZooFari 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. Not used. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
image is from an online magazine on Asian Americans. Website does not have earch feature --Downtowngal (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: no OTRS confirmation that image was released to Commons under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Jacklee. ZooFari 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Probably just another copyvio Gwynhaden (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
obscene 58.121.170.104 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
obscene --91.47.118.106 10:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep These are not deletion reasons. Please stop vandalizing Commons with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikimedia is not censored. There's a whole bunch of vulva images here, and I don't think we plan to delete all of them. ZooFari 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused. Better pictures exist. Oneiros (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep - was kept before Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that it's redundant and unused.--Oneiros (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep will the morality crusade please go away? Do we really need multiple DRs? It's not redundant; for some bizarre reason, the users of Commons are fixated on the one species found in the picture and find it useful to dwell on even minor differences extensively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- At least it's unused. How many unused pictures do you want to keep?--Oneiros (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Out of the millions of unused pictures we have? If we're going to go on a rampage against unused pictures, I think we should kill a few pictures of buildings and trees while we're at it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment We are starting to have quite few views of women's genitals. It isn't censorship if we start to delete those that are both unused and of poorer quality. --Simonxag (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete too vulgar 91.48.62.81 07:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a deletion reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, and better quality images exist. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
to small to be useful --Amada44 (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Too small, unused, unknown breed. ZooFari 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Very low res photo of common animal; no indication of any notability of this particular image compensatory for minimal visiblility. Infrogmation (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
not in use. hopeless bad quality --Amada44 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Deletefor reasons given by nominator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ZooFari 16:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above Gwynhaden (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Deleted, very poor quality photo of common objects. Infrogmation (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No license, no source, no author and certainly copyvio (see uploader's log). Peter17 (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, cropped from a wider image [1], obviously not own work. –Tryphon☂ 08:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://38.img.v4.skyrock.net/384/daniel-balavoine/pics/293647512.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploader claims public domain, but image appears here, where no explicit statement of public domain is given. -Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no OTRS. ZooFari 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoofari Gwynhaden (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
to small to be usefull, not in use --Amada44 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality and unknown. ZooFari 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above Gwynhaden (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Deleted. — Dferg (disputatio) 11:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Premature upload...author desires to start over --17:08, 22 December 2009 User:Araigadai
Deleted. — Dferg (disputatio) 11:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
possible copyvio. Definitely a pro picture, by an uploader with no other uploads, apparently both CC-BY-SA and GFDL, small size - this smells like a copyright violation to me. Apologies if it is not, but I'd like to see some proof that the uploader actually has the rights to this photo. --AlexanderKlink (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I googled the source and nothing came up. ZooFari 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete probably just anther copyvio Gwynhaden (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Deleted. [2] — Dferg (disputatio) 11:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://images2.fanpop.com/images/forum/topics/21000/21723_1257872120764_full.jpg){kind=link}
Article is delete Emruk (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete} Since you're the uploader and the image is classified as a personal Wikipedian image. ZooFari 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (disputatio) 11:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
low quality --Amada44 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given by nominator. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ZooFari 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. ·×α£đ·es 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. ·×α£đ·es 18:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) has the copyright to this image exclusively and no permission was given for this image to appear on this site or any other. All rights are reserved by GIA. Please take this file off this site. Jac815 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No OTRS and not free license. ZooFari 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Low quality (blurry); unused, better images here. ZooFari 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Unused image that is beyond the scope of the project. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused file that is beyond the scope of the project. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is a small version of the picture with the following text in it: LOCKEED-MARTIN. So it should be from Lockheed-Martin. --Uwe W. (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Well, the given source, that is an official NASA-page states "Image Credit: NASA/JPL". So, this copyright issue is quite pointless to be discussed on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not copyvio Gwynhaden (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
- Delete The copyright status is unclear, both sources maintain an other copyright holder.--Uwe W. (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, it's NASA's problem if they got it wrong. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no valid source stated that would confirm a PD-USGov licence High Contrast (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Image looks like a japanese Ohka kamikaze attack plane. According to the german article, the american codename for these was "baka", as in the image. Also, the descriptions in the image are in english and not in japanese, so it is very likely that the image's source country is the US. As it is clearly a military image, PD-USGov seems very likely to me. Contacting the original uploader at ruwiki could probably help. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a quite worthless comment because you are not aware of the problem: we look for a proof that this file falls under a PD-USGov licence. The stated source (Transferred from ru.wikipedia (Original text : учебное пособие)) gives no evidence. So we do need a better (at best original) source that attests a PD-USGov licence. --High Contrast (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I assumed you were contesting the license because the file has a russian name and comes from the russian wikipedia. Even if there's no actual proof of PD-USGov, it seems very likely to me. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Addition: I couldn't find the image on an US website, but this page (in french) claims it's from an allied document describing the plane: Illustration extraite d'un document allié décrivant les composants d'un « Baka » (surnom donné par les alliés à l'Ohka et signifiant « idiot » en Japonais). In english: Image from an allied document describing the parts of a "baka" (name given by the allies to the Ohka, meaning «idiot» in japanese). Is this enough? --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Text on the document itself makes it clear that it's a US government document. --Simonxag (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-USGov. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly a derivative work (cropped and modified, but the source is still easily recognizable, note e.g. the tie!) of the non-free photo of Karl Jaspers used under "fair use" in the English Wikipedia (see en:File:KarlJaspers.jpg). Gestumblindi (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guten Tag. Das Bild ist mein Werk und stammt aus einer ganzen Reihe großformatiger Siebdruckportraits, die ich angefertigt habe. Für jeden Kundigen dürfte unzweifelhaft sein, dass das Bild die geforderte Schöpfungshöhe für ein eigenes Urheberrecht besitzt. Selbstverständlich habe ich mich, wie jeder in dieser künstlerischen Tradition, an Vorlagen gehalten. Auf meinem Bild schaut Jaspers aber eher nach innen, was mir wichtig war, und nicht so sehr nach vorn, wie auf der angeblichen Vorlage. Die schiefe Krawatte war übrigens fast schon ein Markenzeichen von Jaspers, daher habe ich sie auch eingesetzt. -- Amano1 (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ich hätte den Löschantrag ja nicht gestellt, wenn mir nicht spontan die frappante Ähnlichkeit zwischen den beiden Bildern aufgefallen wäre. Natürlich ist es nicht nur die schräge, gestreifte (!) Krawatte - viele weitere Details wie der Schattenwurf und die Falten des Hemdkragens, Frisur und Gesichtsausdruck deuten m.E. darauf hin, dass die Vorlage nicht nur eine "angebliche" ist. Es mag sein, dass deine schöpferische Leistung in der Abwandlung des Originals ebenfalls urheberrechtlichen Schutz für dich begründen würde, dadurch wird jedoch der Schutz des ursprünglichen Werkes nicht aufgehoben, d.h. das abgeleitete Werk ist nur mit Genehmigung des Rechteinhabers zulässig (ähnlich wie die Übersetzung eines Buches, die natürlich eigenen Schutz geniesst, aber trotzdem nicht zulässig ist, wenn der Autor des Originals nicht zustimmt). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Solche künstlerischen Siebdrucke sind ganz klar eigene Schöpfungen, so wie Zeichungen oder Gemälde eigene Schöpfungen sind, auch wenn erkennbar sein kann, dass dem Künstler etwas als Vorlage gedient hat. -- Amano1 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted, derivative work. --Polarlys (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
not in use, copy of a svg file --Amada44 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
not in use, copy of a svg file --Amada44 (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
not in use. extremly bad quality --Amada44 (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
