Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/14

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 January 14th, 2010
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:Who-Is-Dre-McFly?.jpg

[edit]

picture belongs to not notable musician, also possible copyvio, see DR for relevant article on en.wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dre_McFly   ■ MMXX  talk  06:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:33, 14 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:Pliocene_megabiome.svg

[edit]

wrong image Giorgiogp2 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Corrupt SVG Justass (talk) 02:13, 15 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:Pomoc-nik.png

[edit]

Automator Copyright © 2004–2009 Apple Inc., --Afanasovich (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by FunkMonk: Copyright violation

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_sierra.JPG

[edit]

Out of project scope. No foreseeable realistic educational use. –blurpeace (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 21:25, 14 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:Fille_test.png

[edit]

test file, unused, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 21:25, 14 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:ADIS_orange.jpg

[edit]

useless and nonsense!   ■ MMXX  talk  21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 21:25, 14 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:John_Mulholland.jpg

[edit]

Contains Personally Identifiable Information in the metadata. Eric.hendrix (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep So? The Federal Register has been publishing the full socials of officers selected for advancement for years. It's kind of too late for the army to put a stop to it now. -Nard the Bard 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Uh, he works at Fort Bragg. It was taken there. He is the commander of a major command at Fort Bragg. I don't think a public domain photo and one the army took could really be deleted. Also, I echo Nard. --Riotrocket8676 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the image again under the same filename after removing the 9-digit number, that was likely meant by Eric, from the EXIF/IPTC/XMP fields. To fully remove access to the questioned data, the first uploaded version would have to be deleted. But before doing that I would like to have the consent of Riotrocket8676 as the original uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept after version with alleged "Personally Identifiable Information in the metadata" was removed. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 16 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:Logosmall_anim.gif

[edit]

The uploader of this file appears to be claiming (through their username and license tags) that they are a representative of Top 1 Oil and are releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA/GFDL. However, no proof of such authority to release the images has been provided, and it is unlikely that the company would really release their logo under a free license. Nick (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following files for deletion, uploaded by the same uploader, for the same concerns noted above:

--Nick (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:05, 21 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:Int-uca2009.jpg

[edit]

hoax: the sign on the picture was manipulated: in fact this is a housing facility for elderly people --Fransvannes (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 11:39, 21 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:SAKINAashley.jpg

[edit]

personal photograph not used --Amada44 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 11:40, 21 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:Skivomslag.jpg

[edit]

unused nonsense --Amada44 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 11:41, 21 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:Penguingraph.jpg

[edit]

useless, bad quality, and so on Frédéric (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 21 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:John-hamon-paris.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France. –blurpeace (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:09, 21 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:Tecno5.jpg

[edit]

self made ??? - very small, nearly unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 21 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:Picture_2.png

[edit]

no source, possible copyvio and unused.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 21 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:Nyhus Sinna Mann–04.jpg

[edit]

Surely the publishing house owns the illustration, and has not/would not self-release this image under a free license? The uploader is absent; talk page hints to him being the actual illustrator, but we ought to know for sure. --Punkmorten (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Even if he is the illustrator, he is unlikely to own the text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:00, 28 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:AzeriArtillery.jpg

[edit]

rfepl.org: «Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty © 2009 RFE/RL, Inc. All Rights Reserved». I think, we can't publish this photo with free license. Dinamik (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:02, 28 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:Toudaiji Map.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Nara,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:03, 28 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:Map of Minatogawa shrine.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Hyogo,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:10, 28 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:Sanzenin Map.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Kyoto,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:10, 28 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:Kairakuen Map.JPG

[edit]

Copyright violation of art(map).

Place:Ibaraki,Japan.

Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Angr 17:05, 28 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.
Notice Most of the discussion about the deletion of Burj Khalifa images is taking place on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa

Images of Category:Burj Khalifa

[edit]
Images of the tower in general (FoP violation)
Non-photographic media (non-FoP violation) --Not for deletion
Images I'm not sure about

Above are all the images from the category Category:Burj Khalifa (unrecursive). They are separated into subgroups that indicate whether or not they are nominated for deletion because of general FoP issues. I broke them into groups so that it is easier to review and to prevent complaints. All images on that specific category, excluding the subcategories (which is/will be nominated separately), are listed here. Rational for deletion: There is no Freedom of Panorama in United Arab Emirates COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. ZooFari 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. group 1 and 3. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Delf}}

Restored. reopening deletion request. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why? J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Please reopen the Deletion Request on Images of Category:Burj Khalifa. Short version: This DR should not have been closed as quickly as it was. The bottom line may be clear cut to you, but not necessarily to others :) For what its worth I'll look at both this and the other BK properly later.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. First of all, thank you for reopening this discussion. In this list, there are obvious cases where the picture should be deleted: when BK is the primary subject, like File:Burj Dubai 20100105.jpg.

Mainly, I'd like to rely on Commons:De minimis, to ask for some of those pictures to be kept. Here are the main points I'm basing my judgement upon:

A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".

Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not, does not suggest that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.

=> Any panorama photograph where BK is a building among others should be kept. BK may be omitted, the picture would remain a photo of Dubai cityscape.

However, if the [copyrighted material] is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the [copyrighted material] takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a [copyrighted material].

=> Any picture where 1. BK is not the primary subject and 2. BK is blurry, foggy, shadowy, reasonably dull, out of focus, etc. should be kept.

It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters.

=> Pictures showing BK do not necessarily have to be included in Category:Burj Khalifa. They may go in Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai or Category:Cityscapes in the United Arab Emirates. We must not delete a file because of the way someone categorized it.

Finally, keep in mind what Mike Godwin, a lawyer working for the Wikimedia Foundation, has to say: don't pro-actively delete border cases.

In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute.

Now, here are the pictures I'd like to see kept:

  1. Dubai cityscapes:
  2. Blurry/foggy/shadowy pictures of BK:

Finally, as for the section "Non-photographic media (non-FoP violation) --Not for deletion": there is no reason why those images are not subject to this DR. A derived work of a copyrighted material, be it photographic or not, is a copyright infringement. If the mere shape of BK is copyrighted (i.e. if File:Burj Khalifa fireworks.jpg should be deleted) then all comparison diagrams involving the shape of BK (and other skycrapers in other non-FOP countries) should be deleted. My opinion is that the copyright doesn't extend to the mere shape of the building. Those images can thus be kept, except:

— Xavier, 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on File:Burj Khalifa 004.JPG and File:Dubail21.jpg. The Burj Khalifa is clearly the subject of these photos. —JeremyA (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK for the first one, I have removed it from the list. As for the second one, I completely disagree: this is the photo of a whole area. The fact that the photo is centered on BK is a matter of composition and does not make BK its subject. If BK had been in construction, or not constructed, this photo would have kept all its interest. — Xavier, 01:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should rename the files to make the case for "de minimis" stronger, and recat to Dubai only. Elekhh (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working through the first part as discussion seems finished. Deleted all those where there was no doubt raised here. For those deleted that also were mentioned in the discussion see brackets: File:Burj khalifa ( blue lights ) .jpg and File:Burj Khalifa fireworks.jpg (maybe my monitor is set differently , but the building was nicely recognizable and definitely the focus of both pics) File:BurjDubai.01.vm.jpg (as a thumb foggy indeed, but the full size was good quality; all needed to remove the fog from the thumb would have been some clean-up), File:Dubail21.jpg (too much the focal point of the image, even though it had something else around; photo composition was great but considering FOP rather unfortunate). Kept File:Burj Dubai 2009-07-10.jpg, File:Burj Khalifa 005.JPG, File:Burj dubai 1.jpg, File:BurjDubaidawn.JPG and File:Dubai Skyline and Burj Khalifa - 25072008.jpg for being panoramas and File:Burj Dubai from Dubai in Sand Storm.jpg for the tower being not recognizable. -- Cecil (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest: File:Diagramme plus hauts bâtiments du monde.JPG should be discussed separately. For those of section Not sure: File:Burj Khalifa 001.jpg kept (can't see the tower; and the font has no threshold of originality), File:Burj Dubai, reflected in the pool of The Address Downtown Burj Dubai.jpg deleted (once again as a thumb not so problematic, but the full size image the tower is nicely visible), File:ModeloBurj.jpg deleted. -- Cecil (talk) 04:34, 22 March 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:Kaboom.png.gif.tga.avi.jpg

[edit]

useless, no encyclopedic value, as the 2 other imports of this user Frédéric (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 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:Biriba.JPG

[edit]

source websito says: "Todo conteúdo é para fins educacionais" "All content is for educational purposes" http://www.portalsaofrancisco.com.br/   ■ MMXX  talk  21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 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:Cacho_grande.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio, see google image search.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. [1] Rocket000 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 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:GreenTara_closeup_wwwcarmenmensinkcom.jpg

[edit]

photo of someone else's recent painting Secretlondon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete could be own work, could also be a copyvio from http://www.carmenmensink.com/images/green-tara2closeup.jpg /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Photograph of painting created in 2003; needs permission by the painter. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 13 May 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:Tecno3.jpg

[edit]

Sorry, I doubt that this is selfmade - copied from somewhere Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 16:36, 14 May 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:Atari-Logo.svg

[edit]

More than simple shapes. -Nard the Bard 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more: File:Atari logo.png, File:Atari Inc logo.png--Biktora (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per [3] --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:52, 14 May 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:Climategatemammoth.jpg

[edit]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. This image appears to have been created by a new editor to illustrate en:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, to which it was added earlier today. However, it is not remotely encyclopedic, its depiction has no obvious relevance to the subject and the text in the image uses a POV slogan. ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep In scope, could be used in Wikinews covering that very POV. -Nard the Bard 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The depiction has nothing to do with the subject. I have no idea what a mammoth standing on a globe is supposed to represent. It's someone's amateur attempt to create a (rather poorly designed) logo but other than the word "Climategate" it has no connection of any kind with the subject matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Why no connection? It's obviously a play on watergate--DieBuche (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, out of Project scope: no educational value, not in use otherwise. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/01/14&oldid=39604038"