Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Jun44.png){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.GIF){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I uploded a wrong file Drbarbuti (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
very low quality, out of scope, unused in projects, identifiable person in a private place without evidence of permission 220.235.187.245 04:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Low quality to be useful. ZooFari 05:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete it speedy, out scope, low quality, possible personal attack, possible copyvio (google it, don't want to give direct link). Trycatch (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Blurry and unused photo of a penis, we have better pics available. Tabercil (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. very low quality, useless --:bdk: 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
it’s my file, my picture, and i want it deleted immediately Flameon393 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Why did you load it up?. --Achim55 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Male_Penis.jpg Yiwopa6021 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PENIS. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ShaanSenguptaTalk 09:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and lock title Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A screenshot of (I suppose) copyrightet website. --Masz (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Copyright violation http://www.danskfodbold.com/ansvar_ophavsret.php -- Common Good (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Restored as per OTRS Ticket#2010041810024389. --|EPO| da: 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The picture is a photograph of copyrighted photograph, see http://fajar-aryanto.blogspot.com/2010/03/kiswanti-pemilik-warung-baca-lebak.html Sentausa (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems improbable to be "own work", given than it can be found elsewhere - e.g., http://www.starboxoffice.com/images/165x125_pc_of_%27wanted%27_aayesha_takia_at_mehboob.jpg Tabercil (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, obvious {{Copyvio}} from an uploader with a history of uploading copyright violations. Credited to Pradeep Bandekar at http://movies.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/sep/10/slide-show-1-celebrities-day-out.htm. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same uploader just uploaded the duplicate file Ayesha takia.jpg, now crediting the author, claiming both that he waived his copyright and released it into the public domain and that he retains the copyright but allows anyone to use it for any purpose. Needless to say, no evidence to support either of these mutually exclusive and equally bogus claims is provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you... I couldn't locate the source page for the image otherwise I'd've killed it myself.
Deleted. Proven copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
File-Name ist misspelled and the same file has been uploaded under the correct name "König-Ludwig-Feuer" --HHEhlers (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:König-Ludwig-Feuer.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this a valid transfer? I mean, is the local license compatible with Commons? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What license? I didn't see anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Before it was deleted locally it showed a license that said it was allowed to use it there in this state. So now we have to figure out whether there is some quirk in the general copyright to allow us to leave it here... Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously non-free. It was correctly marked as non-free (fair use) on mk-wiki (w:mk:Податотека:Utrinski-naslovna.jpg, so why it was ever transferred here is hard to understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality image of something we have better of Tabercil (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Plenty of better images available. -- Common Good (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The image is listed by the Corbis Corporation at http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.aspx?id=BE047719 as non-free. The assertion on the Commons page that it is from 1901 has no source (the original geocities page for the last version and the freewire.co.uk page for the first version are down and neither had a PD review by an admin before it went down). Hekerui (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Elgar died in 1934 at the age of 76. In this photo, he is depicted at about age 40, so 1901 must be about right. It is extremely unlikely that the photographer died less than 70 years ago. I would say that the claim of copyright by Corbin is spurious. Note that Corbis doesn't even know the date the image was taken. -- 64.52.215.162 01:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I made this comment but wasn't signed in at the time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
- I concur. Jack · talk · 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is on the cover of this album, only credited as "private collection"; {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bettmann/CORBIS claim to own the copyright, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would require no one did since it was published (for which the date would have to be known as well, but isn't). Hekerui (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Opinion of CORBIS is not a very powerful argument, they claims copyright on everything, even on images like this. Trycatch (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see, they probably mean to claim ownership on PD stuff with regard to their copies. Hekerui (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Opinion of CORBIS is not a very powerful argument, they claims copyright on everything, even on images like this. Trycatch (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bettmann/CORBIS claim to own the copyright, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would require no one did since it was published (for which the date would have to be known as well, but isn't). Hekerui (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would this tag help?: {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the CD mentioned above, the image is used on the 1960s Philips LP of Enigma (Colin Davis) - also without either date or attribution. - Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (Tim riley)
- No, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is not allowed on Commons. Trycatch (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep Clearly well out of copyright both in the UK under the 70 year rule and in the US having been published before 1923. It is dated 1901 here [1]. Jack1956 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment This photograph was published at Rotary Photo postcard (ID 2544) in early 1900s ([2], here some more information about this postcard). Trycatch (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)- Comment I believe this tag {{PD-UK}} is what is required. Jack1956 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Philharmonica website probably just took the date from Commons, but the Rotary Photo is a good waypoint. I changed the article page. Hekerui (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Hekerui (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
unused image, outside scope malo (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --ZooFari 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
promotional image, unused malo (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete and very bad quality Amada44 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
nonsense image collage malo (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Amada44 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Jun44.png){kind=link}
Jun44.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It could be that this photograph is an official US Navy file, but this is not proved by the information given. This should be more specific: image ID or if this image comes from the net, an URL to page where this photograph appears. 80.187.97.35 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Jun44.png){kind=link}
- For your sartisfaction NOW IS PROVED! --Erwin Lindemann 07:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep @Erwin Lindemann: keep cool. --GaAs11671 12:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Valid source was added by the uploader. --High Contrast (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Jun44.png){kind=link}
there is no proof that the girl is okay with the upload Amada44 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Should be deleted on sight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, there is no proof that the subject of 99.999% of our photos are "okay with the upload", luckily that is why we have the PersonalityRights template. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues as we have no proof that the model consented to the publication of this photograph. This needs to be done through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
outside scope malo (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
school photo better suited for facebook, out of scope malo (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused band photo, out of scope malo (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Spoke to author, it seems it is a userpageimage, so I withdraw this request. -- malo (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any of the projects. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 01:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Not in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
unused image, possible attack malo (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
musical cover, out of scope malo (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
promotional image, outside scope malo (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Delete per nominator Amada44 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
missing source, bad description, no license or categories. Originally nominated by Madrid1230 (talk · contribs). --ZooFari 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, nothing special being depicted. --ZooFari 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused montage, only edit of this user (kind of art?) - unusable and out of scope (my opinion) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Private image, out of scope. High Contrast (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
modern artwork displayed, New York in Transit, Jacob Lawrence (2001)[3] --Gryffindor (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it if you must, or whatever you bureaucrats do here. It's an image with sucky quality anyway. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
very poor quality and thus out of scope Amada44 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
quality to low for usage, good moon images available Amada44 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - no obvious context - out of scope and unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - cover of a magazine from france, selfpromotion of Francois Nouguies - needs an OTRS Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused, to small to be useful Amada44 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Per talk page. Violation of NPOV --Tadija (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - author of that image is known for disruption of Serbian Wikipedia and his edits are reverted because of that reason. His opinion is not a problem but his agenda: he has very clear political agenda to push certain provocative, non-neutral and often insulting POV related to certain events in Serbian history. This user is well aware of such nature of his edits, but he editing Wikipedia with only goal to prove his political point and most of his edits are violation of neutrality and accuracy. I can agree that he made some useful edits and contributions as well, but in general this user has made more damage than useful contributions to any Wiki project in which he participated. All in all, revert of his provocative and POV edits is certainly not an example of censorship. PANONIAN (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "Violation of NPOV" is not a reason to delete. The revert may not be an example of censorship, but this deletion request proves that at least User:Tadija and User:PANONIAN are afraid of dissenting voices. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete 48 kB where a simple link (http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2680304) would do, is overkill. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. So which way are you trying to vote here Erik? Keep or delete? Tabercil (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a vote. I see reasons to keep and reasons to delete. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. So which way are you trying to vote here Erik? Keep or delete? Tabercil (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I think this is violating the spirit of what Commons is, as it is intended to be "a media file repository ... (images, sound and video clips)" (from Commons:Welcome). While the file being debated is a graphic, it is a mere screenshot of a difference in the Serbian wikipedia. As such, it can be expressed as a simple link (http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2680304), so I do not see why we need a PNG of this specific change. Tabercil (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope: no educational value; no conceivable use of this diff screenshot except for discussion of Wikipedia-internal dispute – and for that purpose an simple diff link is much more appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized line thing. No apparent use. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Overexposed and unused image of something we have better of Tabercil (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- User:Tabercil's "better" penis isn't a reason for deletion. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- To the contrary, the nomination was in line with the statement in Category:Penile erection: "English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted. See also: Commons:Nudity." As I said in the nomination, the image is overexposed, relatively low quality in comparison to what else there is in the category and not in use. Tabercil (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, if you say the pictured organ is of low quality. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- To the contrary, the nomination was in line with the statement in Category:Penile erection: "English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted. See also: Commons:Nudity." As I said in the nomination, the image is overexposed, relatively low quality in comparison to what else there is in the category and not in use. Tabercil (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused and relatively low quality Tabercil (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized picture of an unknown woman. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 17:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized image. Either a promotional picture needing COM:OTRS or non-notable band and out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized photo of some non-notable woman. Uploader's only contribution. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 18:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private images are not fot Commons. --GaAs11671 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No source, no description. GaAs11671 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
.GIF&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.GIF&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused and low quality image of something we have better examples of Tabercil (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.GIF){kind=link}
- Quality is not bad for GIF animation. Trycatch (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep User:Tabercil can always upload those "better examples" (and the pluralis majestatis doesn't fit him/her) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Warmelink (talk • contribs) 14:11, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
- The category Category:Male masturbation (animated) currently has a number of images. This one is of very poor quality in comparison to the rest, so I was just following the category notes: "English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted. See also: Commons:Nudity." Tabercil (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Almost all of those animations show people with extreme melanin deficiency, and, miniscule dicks. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- After the enclosure, Category:Male masturbation (animated) is empty. And that is "good", because otherwise the kids might now what the priest is doing. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by TheDJ: Commons is not an amateur porn site
out of scope malo (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
another unused band photo malo (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, out of scope, unused except in personal gallery. 220.235.187.245 05:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Extremely low quality. Delete. –SJ+ 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be the painter himself, who according to es:Rafael Yzquierdo has been dead since 1952. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing. Undelete in 2023.--Martin H. (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- +File:Taberna .jpg, File:Hungara .jpg, File:Bolillos .jpg, File:Peineta .jpg. All from es:Rafael Yzquierdo. --Martin H. (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Review in 2023: The file is still not PD in the source country until 20 August 2032 (old law of 80 years pma, not 70 pma). Moreover, this work is stated to have been published in the 1930s so us copyright of 95 years would last until 2025-2035. Undelete in 2035 Platonides (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Brasilian Law for a COA of Sudan cannot be. File has NOT been selfcreated b the uploader but copied from de:Datei:Sudan coa.png. This file has been already deleted on commons see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Southern Sudan COA.gif. Jutta234 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom., not self-created, copyright status unclear as per en:File:Coat of arms of Sudan.gif too. --Martin H. (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
not useful Amada44 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
On the given source page (and on the original Flickr upload), this photo is only licensed as CC-BY-NC-2.0 - no evidence for permission to relicense it as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, not free for commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Brasilian Law for a COA of Sudan cannot be. File has NOT been selfcreated by the uploader but copied from de:Datei:Sudan coa.png or en:Datei:Sudan coa.png. This file has been already deleted on commons see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg Jutta234 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe Template:PD-SAGov could fit here. Jutta234 (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. According to en:Coat of arms of South Africa it is not 50 years old but was designed 1999/2000. So: Copyright status unclear, obviously not public domain for the given reason ({{PD-BrazilGov}}....), no evidence that it is public domain for any other reason. --Martin H. (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
strange image from israel - private joke, out of scope (or is there some relevant background??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, Commons is not a host for party pictures. --Martin H. (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, scope? Amada44 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Good question : promotion for a charity organization in Chikago (Toys for kids with cancer), one of several files Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Also the other files, I cant acces the deleted contribs of en:User:Bp1288, but VVV's SUL util suggest, that it is 230 edits. Non-notable organization, out of scope on Commons too. --Martin H. (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
unused selfpromotion of an amateur theatre group from Denmark (or Germany) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment From Austria (de:Schoren (Dornbirn)/Category:Schoren (Dornbirn)), I think. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/4._November_2008#Theatergruppe d'Süosslar (erl.,SLA). --Martin H. (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe this logo is a simple design. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Neither do I. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Useless unused uncategorized image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment weak keep - millions of people are hearing salsa music and are dancing salsa - this logo can be used Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Orphaned image for use on userpages only. Additionally I dont know if the artefact in the lower right corner is free. --Martin H. (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized image of a non-notable bassist. Uploader's only contribution. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope, no context Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photograph of unknown original source; was first uploaded on en-wiki under nonsensical status (claimed both PD-old and Fair Use; neither is applicable). Photograph was obviously not the work of the en-wiki uploader und must be assumed to be non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the globe is PD-old, making a picture of the globe may create copyright, but if the photographer considers that trivial, (s)he is right. The globe was created, the picture was merely shot. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "if the photographer considers that trivial"? We have no indication who the photographer was, let alone what he thinks about the copyright status. (The photographer was certainly not the uploader, since the uploader said he took it from some website [4] – and the website in turn may also well not be the copyright owner either.) The photograph is not of a 2D object, so PD-Art doesn't apply, since the taking of the photograph is still an (albeit minimally) creative act. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Compared to making the globe, taking a picture of the globe is trivial. That is: the author of the globe is Johann Schöner. His work is now public domain, but it stays his work. A good (but I mean really good) picture could credit the photographer, but in 99.9% of the cases the picture does not add any creativity (unless you want to count negative creativity, there was a great globe and all we have is a lousy photo). Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "if the photographer considers that trivial"? We have no indication who the photographer was, let alone what he thinks about the copyright status. (The photographer was certainly not the uploader, since the uploader said he took it from some website [4] – and the website in turn may also well not be the copyright owner either.) The photograph is not of a 2D object, so PD-Art doesn't apply, since the taking of the photograph is still an (albeit minimally) creative act. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is a derivative work of a 3D object (not a faithful copy) that is PD-old. The photograph is a creative work and the property of the photographer. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. and Walter Siegmund. --Martin H. (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused uncategorized picture of some tree branch. Uploader's only contribution. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted MPF (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused text-only image, out of scope. (unrelated to previous DR). P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people we have no evidence of permission for this photo in what is clearly a private place. In fact the flikr comments suggest that the subject wanted the photo taken down. 220.235.187.245 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It would be a precedent. It would be need to mass delete and mass verification. Total chaos. Wait until this lady wants a deletion. Additionally: This picture does not affect the dignity. --Starscream (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to me that subject's comment on the Flickr page is tongue-in-cheek. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
File indicates this was taken before 1923, however there's no source information which is needed for confirmation. --Thirdship (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
giant unused TIFF image malo (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually a quite cool picture, but with this description, it's probably useless. To be really usefull, we would need to downscale it, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
mostly empty image, useless, unused Frédéric (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Keep Strange mostly erased image. Trycatch (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- per ArwinJ. Trycatch (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's not empty. Do not use Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, try opening it with Paint.--ArwinJ (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's intact -- it's closeup of auto tire running over a plastic pot of plants -- but I don't see where it would be useful. Of course, we have stranger images. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
upload new version Modello F24.png ZioNicco (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what this is supposed to be, but it appears to be a video capture. Its only use is on es.wikiquote where it is next to an old French philosopher quote - I have no idea why. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - strange case - looks like: out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
According to http://www.pngaa.net/index_gallery.htm the author E A (Ted) Hawnt died 1976. So the license claim "author died 70 years ago" is obviously wrong. Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sorry for my inattention. If this file infringes copyright, then I have nothing against its deletion.--Переход Артур (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per the deleted original from English Wikipedia, the actual source was http://victory.rusarchives.ru/catalogue/photo.php?photo_id=354&id=18 -- which is ©Росархив. 2004-2009. It's entirely possible that rusarchives.ru is not the copyright holder either, in which case we have no record of who took this photo or when and where it was first published and we cannot therefore determine its copyright status. Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:OTRS ticket is the ticket for anyone with access. I don't feel comfortable handling the ticket myself, and it looks like not many OTRS volunteers are around these days. Just wanted to throw that out there in y'all's deletion discussion. And unfortunately, due to confidentiality, I cannot reveal the content of the e-mail to anyone here. Sorry. But maybe another agent will see this and know what to do!-Andrew c (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say keep based on the ticket. Andrew could you add a note about your concerns to the ticket?--DieBuche (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept per OTRS. DieBuche (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No induscatable source. If there is one (source) I sign up immediately. --GaAs11671 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment no WHAT source? - you mean "proper source"? I am not a native speaker too - - in the comment field I read "Information |Description=Locator Map Deletion requests/File:Ashfield lga sydney.png Based on Image:Ku-ring-gai sydney.png by User:Randwicked. |Source=en.wikipedia |Date= |Author=User:JPD |Permission={{GFDL}} content from English Wikipedia |other_versions= }} {{GFDL-en}} [[Category)" - that is the source (as far as I understand) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- In fact there is no source at all for this image, or you mean that I should make "source digging" before saying that? hummmmmm, do it yourself! --GaAs11671 20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep clearly part of a set of maps of Sydney LGAs, derivatives of a base map made by en.wiki user Randwicked. Map is useful and in use, although it might be replaced one day by a newer version like this. --Elekhh (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Elekhh. File is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Self-request, replaced at two wikis by File:Big Max at Dutchess County Fair.JPG (also taken by me). –Juliancolton | Talk 03:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. What's wrong with this one? Wknight94 talk 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's of extremely poor quality. Keeping it around when we have a far superior version of the same variety at the same exhibit is unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's the only one of a single pumpkin. I can see it having some usefulness. Wknight94 talk 04:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's of extremely poor quality. Keeping it around when we have a far superior version of the same variety at the same exhibit is unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request. File is not in use and superior quality version is available. Kameraad Pjotr 11:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
unused, product promo malo (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral could be used for an article though... Amada44 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Flag of a political party; does not appear to meet any of the criteria for Czech public domain as claimed. Rlandmann (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: It seems to me it's a very simple design and probably doesn't meet the threshold for creativity anyway. It should have a trademark tag added to it, however, if it doesn't already. Mnmazur (talk)
Deleted, not covered by {{PD-CzechGov}}. Kameraad Pjotr 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:LA2-Blitz-0244.jpg
PD-GermanGov doesn't apply here. Image is not a part of a legal work. Avron (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Permisssion geändert. --Milgesch (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hallo Milgesch, {{Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk}} gibt es auf Commons nicht, nur auf de-wp (siehe dort). Die Vorlage {{PD-GermanGov}} bezieht sich nur auf den ersten Absatz von § 5 UrhG, während dies hier eher in den Bereich des zweiten Absatzes fallen dürfte: Das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind, mit der Einschränkung, dass die Bestimmungen über Änderungsverbot und Quellenangabe in § 62 Abs. 1 bis 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 und 2 entsprechend anzuwenden sind. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, {{PD-GermanGov}} does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1930-1931 photographs of architecture. COM:FOP#France is not OK for Le Corbusier house in Garches. And we cannot be sure the photographer is anonymous, unless someone can check the source mentioned at the bottom of the page (Abb. 4 und 6 nach "Wasmuths Monatshefte Baukunst und Städtebau", Jahrg. 1930 u. 1931." Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
US copyright would only be expired if the image was pre-1923. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Photo is Public Domain Imagery and therefore sanctioned by Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrp1017 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader Mrp1017 (talk | contribs) provides evidence to OTRS that the image was pre-1923 (or is Public Domain for a different reason), it appears that the uploader is abusing {{PD-Art}} as it is highly likely that the image, which appears to be a photograph of Johnny Vander Meer in a Cincinnati Reds baseball cap was from the 1940 season, or from earlier in his career with the Reds, perhaps as far back as his debut in 1937. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- DONT DELETE- uploader Mrp1017 (talk | contribs) has intellectual rights to that image, which appears to be a photograph of Johnny Vander Meer in a Cincinnati Reds baseball cap, is family property from my Grandfather who was a photographer and hired by MLB to photograph the team in 1939. Unless you want a photo of my grandfather photographing the team from 1939 I suggest you make this system a bit easier and friendlier to use. Baseball cards are also property of their owners and are therefore subject to use by said owners. I know my grandfather wouldn't have minded so neither should you. — Mrp1017 (talk|contribs) 02:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- You need to complete the email template at COM:ET and send it in to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org, accompanied with definitive proof of copyright ownership. Ownership of a baseball card is not the same as ownership of the copyright and right to reproduce it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- You need to complete the email template at COM:ET and send it in to permissions-commons
Deleted, no evidence that the uploader holds the copyright, not {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} cannot be verified. Kameraad Pjotr 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a corrupt version of original (laterally inverted) : see original at http://www.darvillsrareprints.com/Images/images/Vanity%20Fair/Politicians/1871-1872/harrowby.jpg . Now superseded by correct version on Commons : File:Earl of Harrowby Vanity Fair 8 April 1871.jpg --Rcbutcher (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- This image was taken from the very same source as File:Earl of Harrowby Vanity Fair 8 April 1871.jpg, and probably it was mirrored and cropped intentionally for WP articles. Trycatch (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it's not in use, and mirrored versions of images are misleading and are generally not useful for educational purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Billinghurst: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Harrowby2.JPG
This file is not useful for its original purpose. It is now unused, and was meant to be used as a health pictogram, which use is a breach of 18 USC § 706. Also the quality is poor. --SaMi (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The current image is indeed poor and your other comments too are correct. Still however, I find that a new (non-religious, or, as in my case multi-religious) health pictogram is definitly needed. Perhaps a variation of http://www.marylandburninjurylawyer.com/ (where the snake heads have been changed for a continious, connnecting line). Tell me what you think. Note that rather than removing this image, we can simply add a new version, this will keep the name (health pictogram.png is a good name for the image)
08:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Health signs all seem to be culture-related. I don't feel this image should be changed, because there already are enough other images such as the Star of Life, Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius used for those purposes. A health pictogram should in any case be SVG. As of now, this file is used only to illustrate a rejected proposal. --SaMi ✉ 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Don't delete, but revert. People talked about the original, not about the version of 20 April 2010. Knowing what a rejected proposal looked like, can be a time saver. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's used on two pages, an archived en.WP article talk page that predates the 20 April 2010 version, and a de.WP user subpage that postdates the 20 April 2010 version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I advise reverting and uploading new version separately. We don't delete unused media, and just because an image is not useful for its original purpose does not imply that it is useless for any encyclopedic purpose. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
