Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
The quality is so poor that it is useless image. This public place can be easily photographed in much better way. Miraceti (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is photo of Česká Street in Brno in Winter 2007. We haven´t another photo from that winter with Christmas decoration. It can be easily photographed in much better way only in case of time traveling. --Dezidor (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, unfortunately it was not kept for the future generations then either since there is virtually nothing depicted in the photo which could show how the street looked at that time. Miraceti (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The place is clearly recognizable and visibly and adequately depicted and focused. The quality is correspondent to the daytime and season. There are no more images of the same place at the same time on Commons. The existence of this photo don't impedes taken of other photos of this place - such possibility is no argument for removing. The fact that some user don't like some image don't imply that such image is useless. Commons is a documentation-educational project and not artistic or advertising one. --ŠJů (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep One image of an event is better than nothing. ZooFari 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Hurts the eye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)- Delete Low quality. I understand there are myriads of pictures with even lower quality, yes... but when a opportunity to remove something unuseful is, it is advisable to use it. After all, the picture has terrible problems with lighting - seems like some bomb exploded or what. The street itself is obscured by that terrace standing in front of it. There are no sources of light usable etc etc etc... --Aktron (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "Can be" is not valid reason. --Milan M. (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unused private image Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, no appropriate description and unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 20:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (even with known location) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Not a lot of pictures of this place yet. --Simonxag (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
scan of an old, bad image - no indication that it is without copyrights Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused and undescribed scan - unknown copyrights, unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
small, unused image - unknown location - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused and poor quality. I'd also have a few doubts about its self-made status. --Simonxag (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused "logo" - unusable, out of scope (see the other strange files of this user too) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete certainly useless without some sort of description. --Simonxag (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
selfpromotion of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
text with advertisement - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
unused strange logo (metal band??) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. We'd need OTRS permission to keep it if we wanted it as it's clearly the band logo on Myspace :- [1]. --Simonxag (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused orphaned dutch historical scan - undescribed - out of scope, useless Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - "only edit of this user" - three other files already deleted Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete image useless with no description. --Simonxag (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no source, no description. Polarlys (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused muscial group logo - out of scope, several other versions of this file Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. We'd need OTRS permission to keep this as it's the band's own logo see [2]. --Simonxag (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Elekhh (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. --High Contrast (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
personal image taken from a blog?! - unknown copyrights and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom (unless someone can say who this guy is) --Simonxag (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (please use it on your userpage, otherwise it is out of scope) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
spam, out of project scope, copyright violation? 78.50.139.5 09:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal CV. --Simonxag (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The same image has been uploaded again at File:Syed shadab kazmi.jpg. -- Krinkletalk 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of scope Martin H. (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- This file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. As Martin H. stated, it seems to be a personal picture. DustyComputer (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of non trivial comercial logo with copyright [3] --ecelan (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
one of Michelangelo's early drawings. out of project scope. 78.55.121.172 14:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused & useless --Simonxag (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. File is not used and it is hardly imaginable for this file being usable for encyclopaedic purposes High Contrast (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Given the watermark, this looks like a copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. File is not used and it is hardly imaginable for this file being usable for encyclopaedic purposes. High Contrast (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused & miscategorized personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Doubt that COM:FOP can cover this photo. MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation, ownership belongs EXCLUSIVELY to Universal Music, Portugal 83.228.176.250 13:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The uploader claims they took the photo themselves. What evidence do you have that the photo was taken by Universal Music or one of their employees? Just because a company owns the copyright to her music, doesn't mean they own the copyright to all photos of her, only the copyright of their own photos, not those taken by third parties (e.g. fans). --SJK (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence of copyright violation. Tin eye yields nothing and photo has exif data. Also doesn't look like a professional shot. --Simonxag (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence of copyright violation. I agree with the other opinions given above. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 21:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Template:Db-hoax) 85.5.167.184 18:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You cannot nominate a file for deletion without giving a valid reason. In this way, it's just vandalism.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep - no reason for deletion given (the music may belong to sony, but not all images of her Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{speedy|copyright violation, will sue wikimedia}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.167.184 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
Keep No reason given. If 85.5.167.184 wishes to sue Wikimedia, he's welcome to try, but courts also require coherent reasoned explanations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note This entry had messed up formatting with two sets of entries. Rather than try to sort them out, I have just moved the {{Delf}} to the bottom of both. I think that will work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No license and it is a screenshot of a webcam conversation. Doubt he gave permission (privacy expected). MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete At best unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
trs 80.218.13.94 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- keeps. -Nard the Bard 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason given for deletion --Simonxag (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
unused private selfportrait - notability is not proven, facebook page is not enough Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
selfportrait of a lawyer from germany - unclear notability, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also very low quality --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
unused band promotion foto - out of scope, notability unclear Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
logo of an unknown company - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Page is out of project scope/not useful for educational purposes --92.237.94.232 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how its "out of project scope" or "not useful for educational purposes". I wouldn't even call the image pornographic, I think it would fit perfectly well in an anatomy textbook. --SJK (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Many other images depicting precisely the same thing. 'Head' of image is of mediocre quality at best, a little blurred. --Mark113 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As said before. Parts of image poor quality, many other superior images in usage.
Why exactly do you need to keep it when there are numerous other images of exactly the same thing on the site?
As per Detailed guidelines on ‘Commons:deletion_policy’ page that state: “Files not realistically useful for educational purposes include; Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject”. Numerous higher quality more informative alternatives on the site. User is told nothing about subject, relevant statistics, age etc. (this is another reason listed on this site). Mark113 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per private email request Huib talk 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
unused file, text with selfdescription - out of scope, despite the author is a historian from peru Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused band foto - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete useless image --Simonxag (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
?? - advertisement for a hotel, will fit to facebook, but here out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
strange drawing with interesting description: "-", in two languages - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - as far as I see, all files of this user are similar and out of scope, but I am not familiar with mass deletion requests Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
looks funny but out of scope, at least without any description Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- This picture includes original box, but also the original vehicle as privately touched up making the setting and composition of the photo unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstevencampbell (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
- But there is copyright attached, to the very least, to the photograph on the box. This photographs has attracted copyright in the same way that your current picture does. --Eusebius (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Enough allready {nopenis} Krinkletalk 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete very poor quality and more than enough examples of this subject already. --Simonxag (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we don't need new lq photos of penis. Herr Kriss (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
nhf 79.189.32.93 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Test/Vandalism? -Justass (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
people of the colombian-american commerce chamber - unused and useless for wikimedia projects - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Its the ambassador for that little known country the EEUU, otherwise known as the United States of America. --Simonxag (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I withdraw my deletion request - sorry for my mistake Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, this not under PD. What do you think ? Kyro (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I tagged this {{PD-US-no notice}}. Please be more specific with your objections than referring to your "humble opinion". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Apple logo is a trademark of Apple and I don't think that the changes anything about it. Kyro (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- A registered {{Trademark}}, yes - so what? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Apple logo is a trademark of Apple and I don't think that the changes anything about it. Kyro (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let me have a guess: This was pubished with Apple software, are you saying there was no copyright notice with this software? Esby (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not really know if software was copyrighted back then, but it does not matter. The logo was "published" on hardware and was printed in advertisements and brochures. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- This does not look like not copyrighted. Esby (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, it does not matter. See http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/gallery1.html for early advertisements. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- This does not look like not copyrighted. Esby (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not really know if software was copyrighted back then, but it does not matter. The logo was "published" on hardware and was printed in advertisements and brochures. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept Image was published in the USA before 1978 without a © notice. SV1XV (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.svg, it was created from an earlier version of the svg, as is clear from the notch at the end the the fgreen stripe; see also discussion on my talk page. /Pieter Kuiper
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
diagram with black parts - unused and unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- comment: better version is here: File:Rotation nav.png Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep I'm not convinced its useless. --Simonxag (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
claimed copyright expired, but lack of evidence for that SJK (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
To provide some more details. It is claimed the copyright is expired, but no author is identified, so how can we be sure the author is dead long enough for it to be expired? Or equally, "Author unknown, this work is very old" -- without a publication date, we can't know if it is old enough to be expired. There is no source for the image, other than "Found via http://images.google.com/images?q=nadis". I think the actual source is probably the page http://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/nadis.html, which identifies it as coming from David V. Tansley, Subtle Body - Essence and Shadow, (1977, Art and Imagination Series, Thames and Hudson, London). However, it gives no further source, so we cannot tell where the book author got the image from -- it is possibly so old as to be out of copyright, but we don't know. And the book itself certainly is still in copyright. --SJK (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot from an Italian Movie. It may be PD in the US, but was first released in Italy (as confirmed by the IMDB)where it will still be copyrighted. Simonxag (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- According to http://www.archive.org/details/hercules, the whole movie is in the public domain. I guess this is due to lack of renewal. --Damiens.rf 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- The same source cites the production company as "Galatea Film": this can be confirmed as Italian by the BFI [4] and the IMDB [5]. The IMDB [6] states that "Le fatiche di Ercole" (orignal title) was "the first film shot in Italy in the French Dyaliscope anamorphic widescreen system" and that its US distribution rights were sold for $120,000. In short this is an Italian movie. It may be out of copyright in the US, but not in its country of origin (or anywhere else for that matter). --Simonxag (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons only accepts files which are free in the country of origin. There is no reason for this image to be free in Italy. Pruneautalk 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot from 1958 Italian movie. Still very much in copyright in Italy. Simonxag (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- According to http://www.archive.org/details/hercules, the whole movie is in the public domain. I guess this is due to lack of renewal. --Damiens.rf 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Reeves 2.jpg Pruneautalk 13:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted logotype --Man (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is entirely their own work. However, the pointing hand image can be found in multiple places around the Internet, including here, here, here and here. Furthermore, fair use (as invoked in the permission statement, contradicting the licensing) is not permitted at Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Such pointing fists are a typographic element that feels rather old. See for example these ones. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The pointing hand goes back to the 19th century, but "Fair Use - Not to be re-sold 4 profit" is unacceptable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is not "own work"; the author is the Real Academia Española de la Lengua, and this have copyright Ferbr1 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a poster/board with unknown copyright status. Regretably the full information from he.wp wasnt transfered and I cant read it too. --Martin H. (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Original photo must be more than 50 years old, {{PD-Israel}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept - seems likely per Pieter Kuiper that the original image (though not the poster) is over 50 years old. James F. (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect (Dreigiau and Gleision are mixed up), also replaced by File:RhanbarthauRygbiCymru.svg. --Adam7davies (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominee. Oudated, incorrect and superceded. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. James F. (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:Tate Modern IMG 9300.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Tate Modern IMG 9301.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Junk. No educational use, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That is modern art - the crack on the floor of the buliding is a permenant work of art W:Shibboleth (artwork). The images illustrate the fact that "Following the exhibition the crack was filled in however the "scar" of the work remains visible." as detailed in the article. Deror avi (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above - indeed, these images depict a notable work of art, respectively its remains. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete While I understand the significance, these are poor quality, particularly 9301. Can we get better ones? If not, we always have File:Shibboleth Tate Modern.jpg which shows it much more clearly. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jameslwoodward. —Quibik (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep IMG 9300 (best quality), Delete others A.J. (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per Jameslwoodward. Sorry, but this is a floor. It is not moving. It is in a light hall. So it should be more than easily possible to make pictures of that scar that are sharp. Especially as this floor is in a museum in the UK, which means indoor-FOP. As none of the images is in use because of their bad quality (not even by the author himself who created an article about this work of art in his home wiki), I delete them all (otherwhise I would have kept img9300 until a replacement). Cecil (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
File:First_second_third_worlds_map.svg and other similar maps
[edit]
IT wrongly list countries as 1st, 2nd and 3rd World: i.e. Yugoslavia was non-aligned (in fact, was a founding member of non-aligned movement), yet here it is 2nd world, clearly wrong. It should be either deleted or re-touched. Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
To add to this deletion request page , India was a part of the third world countries but not any more. Though there are few issues like poverty in the rural area of the country it is considered among the developed countries and has the capacity to help countries which are in need, India have proved to be a self sufficient country, the biggest democracy of the world and is present in almost every highest production list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.37.192 (talk • contribs) this is a Single Purpose Account-the user has made no other edits.
- Keep We don't delete in that case, we correct the image. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Don't delete, It r hwlp me do mai hw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.117 (talk • contribs)
- Delete as original research. There is no way to correct it as there are no reliable sources to say which country is first/second/third world. I voted to delete these four years ago after the same issues came up then. Also adding to the nomination:
- File:Map of First World Countries.svg
- File:Actual Third World.PNG
- File:Third world countries map world.gif
- File:Third world countries map world 2.PNG
- File:World map worlds first second third.GIF
- File:World map worlds first second third.gif
- File:World map with unsystematically purple coloured states.png
- File:Firstworld.png
- File:Secondworld-extended.png
- File:2º Mundo.PNG
- File:Developed nation.png
- File:Developed nation edit1.svg
Roke (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep First off, Wikimedia Commons does not actually have a "no original research" policy as such. Second, images are not generally deleted here due to legitimate differences of interpretation. They can be deleted for containing blatant obvious uncorrected factual errors, or if they were created with a deliberate intent to hoax and deceive -- but it's really not the role of Commons to take sides concerning matters which are legitimately disputed. We can provide graphics expressing various interpretations, and then it's really up to each of the individual language Wikipedias to decide which particular images they want to use. It's not our role to make these decisions for the Wikipedias. Third, as a general matter, the fact that some classifications have blurry borders or fuzzy edges does not mean that the classification is useless... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- They're not legitimate differences - they are unreferenced points of view. They need to be based on a published source saying which countries are which, or be something like 'top 50 countries by HDI'. (Example of a map with sources) Keeping these maps will just cause endless arguments over which country to include which can't be resolved because the notion of what is first or third world is vague. Unlike some other classifications with blurry edges (e.g. language map), these are biased to begin with - it's saying some countries are better than others, while a language map is saying a different language is used, not that one is better than another. Roke (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have just illustrated the main point of the three-worlds theory, that some countries are better than others. It's a global take on the law of the jungle, not everyone can be the cheetah, someone has to be the slow wildebeest. We don't just remove information because you don't like it, that is a staple of Wikimedia policy. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Better in which ways? Different countries are better than others in different ways, to use your analogy, just as a sparrow can fly away from the cheetah. Imagine how difficult would it be to classify all animals as either first- second- or third- rate. Roke (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have just illustrated the main point of the three-worlds theory, that some countries are better than others. It's a global take on the law of the jungle, not everyone can be the cheetah, someone has to be the slow wildebeest. We don't just remove information because you don't like it, that is a staple of Wikimedia policy. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- To be incorporated into a Wikipedia article, it's certainly very desirable that they be sourced, but that's a matter for the various Wikipedias to enforce at their own level, and not particularly a valid reason for the images to be deleted from Commons (as long as the images do not have blatant obvious uncorrected factual errors, and were not created with a deliberate intent to hoax and deceive). AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The argument that Yugoslavia was non-aligned with the Soviet Union is bogus. Yes, it had a special status vis-a-vis other countries in Eastern Europe but it was clearly still in the sphere of the USSR. This is a useful and descriptive map, especially considering the continued use of terms like the "Third World." The map should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.71.1 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2010 (UTC) this is a Single Purpose Account-the user has made no other edits.
- Keep Aside from everything already said about NOR not being a policy here, please note that this image says that it may not reflect current understanding; whether or not India is Third World anymore isn't an issue. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Cape Town election maps
[edit]- File:LGE2006 Cape Town PR results map.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LGE2006 Cape Town Ward results map.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These maps are redundant with File:Cape Town municipal election 2006 PR winner by ward.svg and File:Cape Town municipal election 2006 councillor party by ward.svg. They are of considerably worse quality than the replacements - if you compare the 2000px renderings of each one, you can see that the old maps have very jagged/pixilated boundaries. For example, compare [7] with [8]. I am the author of both, so there are no attribution issues. Htonl (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
![[7]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/LGE2006_Cape_Town_PR_results_map.svg/2000px-LGE2006_Cape_Town_PR_results_map.svg.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Cape_Town_municipal_election_2006_PR_winner_by_ward.svg/2000px-Cape_Town_municipal_election_2006_PR_winner_by_ward.svg.png){kind=link}
Deleted and made into redirects. Pruneautalk 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
GIF duplicates of French crowns
[edit]- File:Biret prince.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Biret baron.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Biret duc.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Biret comte.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These are all duplicated versions of PNG files with the same names. The GIF versions, (listed above), are the versions NOT being used as opposed to the PNG versions which are. Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicates. The Ogre (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicates. Vadac (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)