Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
COM:DW Wknight94 talk 01:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 01:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 01:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Armenia. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep What is copyrightable here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)- Keep Idem, I don't understand the rational of this request. Sardur (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Idem. Also: this is rather {{PD-ineligible}} (or {{PD-text}} + {{PD-shape}}) than copyrighted... Julo (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright problem here (what panorama ?). Bouarf (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete It looks like a copyrightable design to me. --Simonxag (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nothing apparently copyrightable. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
BLP vandlism --Mys 721tx (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete-天上的雲彩 與我對話 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as vandalism J.delanoygabsadds 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
pornography 95.223.199.114 09:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) r
- (non-admin) Does not add anything new to the scopes of Nude in public, Vulva, Nude women, Nudism , Shaved genitalia (female). Pitke (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Within scope, and there is no need (or benefit) to reduce image numbers so that they "add something new". Ingolfson (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep there is no good reason for deletion. It have different angel for vulva viewing.--Gordafarid (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep NO REASON FOR DELETION.BEAUTIFUL BODY— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.178.174 (talk • contribs) (first and only activity on commons), 12. Februar 2010, 21:53 Uhr (UTC)
- Keep NO HAY RAZONES PARA BORRARLA, ES UNA BUENA FOTOGRAFIA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.161.202 (talk • contribs) (first and only activity on commons), 15. Februar 2010, 17:36 Uhr (UTC)
- Keep No Reason for deletion this picture is within scopes of public nudity not pornograghy!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinwin2 (talk • contribs) (first and only activity on commons), 23. Februar 2010, 05:15 Uhr (UTC)
Comment Dear 95.223.199.114 -- photographs are not really deleted here solely because they can appeal to people's prurient interests. Rather, they can be deleted for violating copyright, violating privacy rights, because they're low-quality and redundant/duplicative to many other images on Commons, or because they serve no ascertainable useful purpose (see Commons:Scope). AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)- Comment just to state this clearly, this is no "voting", this picture may get deleted even if a hundred one-edit-accounts or IPs "vote" to keep it. Yet noone gave a valid reason why this picture is within scope! axpdeHello! 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unused, better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE.--Oneiros (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We don't have that many pictures of older women.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept "mere nudity is not pornography" -- Jimbo Wales [1]. -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license: author died in 1952, less than 70 years ago Jujutacular (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- The subject of the photograph, Daniel Coit Gilman, died in 1908. The photograph was published in the United States prior to 1924, and I should have indicated that that was instead the correct license. Apologies, my error. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Frances Johnston voluntarily transfered her work collection to LOC[2], presumably with all copyrights, because there are no known copyright restriction over any of her works[3] Justass (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, license corrected to {{PD-US}} -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:MBmorrisonPIC.jpg
The image just dispays one user's personal statistics. So, I believe it has nothing to do with creation of the encyclopedia, is clearly unusable in articles and unnecessary. Do we need to support littering Commons and all the projects? --Trans-Continental (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image is in use. Commons allows uploading a few images for use on one's own user page. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's an user image. And a very active user. Not a fake one as many over there that use Wikipedia User Page as a personal entry.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use user image; not a problem. Infrogmation (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, and most likely a copyright violation (low resolution, no EXIF). –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture, or sort of.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Undescribed orphan, low res, no particular in scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal picture. Blurred. No apparent scope. Unused since January. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete private image Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange file - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete what is that?--DieBuche (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low res orphan; no in scope usefulness apparent Infrogmation (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low resolution. Ununderstandable subject. Not usable in this way. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
not used, advertise --Motopark (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement. No apparent educational purpose.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Not used, advertise --Motopark (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Thank you for sharing. But, without the right context, it's just an advertisement. There are better ways to document your own activity. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Not used, advertise --Motopark (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete diito --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested by uploader --Lazdynas (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 19 May 2010; no license
All images in the category are derivative works. Uploader has many unrelated copyvios. --Wknight94 talk 01:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:La Malinche.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvalejandrofernandez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvbradpitt.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvfelipecalderon.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvfreddy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvjuanpabloii.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mcvpapajuanpabloii.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- KeepAlthough it might be useful to have a Spanish speaker review the Mexican law, our notes on FOP appear to allow photographs of works in "publicly accessible interiors" in Mexico. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn per Jameslwoodward. Not sure what I was looking at when I nom'ed. Wknight94 talk 14:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Artist died 26th June 1942 - 70 years after his death have therefor not expired. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader claims to be the sole heir of the artist, and i hope a mail to de-permissions... does the trick.--134.2.3.101 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Media without a license as of 20 May 2010; no license
The Artist died 26th June 1942 - 70 years after his death have therefor not expired. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader claims to be the sole heir of the artist, and i hope a mail to de-permissions... does the trick.--134.2.3.101 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Media without a license as of 20 May 2010; no license
The Artist died 26th June 1942 - 70 years after his death have therefor not expired. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader claims to be the sole heir of the artist, and i hope a mail to de-permissions... does the trick.--134.2.3.101 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Media without a license as of 20 May 2010; no license
Non-free logo of political party. Dinamik (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted {{logo}} abf «Cabale!» 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo of Azerbaijan Premier League. Dinamik (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted {{logo}} abf «Cabale!» 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo of football club. Dinamik (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted {{logo}} abf «Cabale!» 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Crappy unused map, can be replaced by this one File:TreatyOfSevres.png --DieBuche (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and valid source is missing. --High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Fehlerhaftes Format Langohr (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Bad dupe of File:Subcarpathia_Carpatho-Ukraine_german.svg--DieBuche (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted uploaders request abf «Cabale!» 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal picture. Probably the Champion Belts are copyrighted. Unused since January. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- per nom--DieBuche (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
nearly private unused image from a robot contest - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Mostly personal. They could share better things about their robotic skills than a souvenir photo.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
unused biographic pdf - out of scope, self promotion Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete New tendency for Commons: curricula repository. We are in full evolution.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism --Ferbr1 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Vandalism or mistake. Whatever.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted whatever. ;) abf «Cabale!» 11:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 22:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low res orphan. Formerly used in en:W article deleted as non notable self-promotion; no in scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused, possibly useless, several black circles at Category:Black circles --ZooFari 23:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Only used to replace a personal photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Pieter.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Justass (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality and unused, possibly useless. --ZooFari 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If needed, one should re-color File:Communauté_silhouette.svg and keep it as .svg instead of JPGifying it (as had happened here). Unused and available (with little effort) in better (SVG) version. --Guandalug (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE - no serious use possible abf «Cabale!» 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused image that was only used in fr:Parti Hybride. That article was deleted as a hoax (canular). So I don't think this is in Commons Scope. Ö 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If it's an hoax.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No indication why this image is PD in Argentina or elsewhere. Identical image found here: http://www.us.terra.com/copa2006/esp/grandes/6706.html --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Image quality and format suggests this is a screenshot, not a photograph --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Either that or a cropped and VERY enlarged cut from a photography. In any case, it's not really what I'd call a "good" or even "usable" picture. --Guandalug (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unknown, bizarre, band. Personal picture. Low quality. Unused since January. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Might be of some use as illustration of punk fashion, except that it is small low resolution. Infrogmation (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused image, replaced by File:Flag of Shimane Prefecture.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused image, replaced by File:Flag of Iwate Prefecture.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lower quality per nom--DieBuche (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused file, replaced by File:Flag of Hokkaido Prefecture.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If files are identical you can use {{Dupe}} as well--DieBuche (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, done that before but cannot really do it for PNG to SVG files and still have to go through DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, sry, must have oversawn it was a png--DieBuche (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's all good. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, sry, must have oversawn it was a png--DieBuche (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, done that before but cannot really do it for PNG to SVG files and still have to go through DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Without OTRS at the very minimum, I don't see how we can trust this to have the copyright status given. A commercially published song clip as a CC-by-SA self-release with no indication of any position the user thus releasing holds that would justify that?
There's a mistaken, but (for some reason) unusually common belief that the creation of a fairly trivial derivative of a copyrighted work - such as a sound clip - lets you relicence. I believe this is most likely the case here. --Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality unused gif, vector present: 9dots.svg --ZooFari 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty unuseful--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Source is CC Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Apparent Flickr change of license. Image was reviewed and found to be free licensed cc-by-sa-2.0 at the time of upload. Photo is in use. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted, the original uploader didn't understand the law matanya • talk 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
According to original page on en was taken from http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/index0.htm with no evidence that they hold the copyright or for that matter have released it if they do--Geni (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please state which file u want deleted --DieBuche (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Unfortunately, the image has no source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Dereckson (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused & unneeded redirects, not even shorter than the target templates name. Both created in 2007 & no significant history since --DieBuche (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep You must have a better memory for detail than many of us. I wish we had this kind of redirect for many two word templates -- I can't reliably remember which of these is correct:
- Missing description
- No description
- Description missing
- Anything that helps newbies, regulars, and admins alike move more quickly around our pages and not have to remember trivial details should be encouraged. More cross references, more redirects, more items in the Editor's index --all will help us save user time, our scarcest resource. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder how I failed to think of that. --DieBuche (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Retracted by user --DieBuche (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 2 June 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)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obsolete duplicate of File:Flag of Okayama.svg. Blurpeace 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being. As pointed out by a Japanese user, the central emblem (県章) was drawn incorrectly. There was supposed to be a line of separation. I recently added it, but until I see the document "県章および県旗を定める告示" from this prefecture, I am not comfortable in deleting this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, withdrawing nomination per Zscout370. Blurpeace 01:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The issues that were addressed at the last DR have been fixed, the SVG file at File:Flag of Okayama Prefecture.svg now matches prefectural law (which I was able to see now). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs). ZooFari 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image seems to exist for the sole or principal purpose of attacking or intimidating other users and is of a nature apparently intended to shock or give offense to some, and appears to have no encyclopedic or other Wikimedia related use. Attack images should be considered a form of vandalism. Thuresson 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a candidate for a {{speedydelete}}. Mutter Erde 18:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I was thinking that it's the same of Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png, isn't it?--OsamaK 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have a large number of such images aimed at activities, ideologies and religions. --Simonxag 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete sorry, but I am not seeing any encyclopedic sense. __ ABF __ ϑ 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- We have too many images that's unencyclopedic (e.g. Personal photos or above ones..)--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This picture is only in use by OsamaK [4] and I don't think, that you can use this picture in any Wikipedia-Article -- Ra'ike Diskussion 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
![[4]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=No_Israel.svg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
- All these images (Image:Non aux religions.png, Image:No god.PNG, Image:No music.svg or Image:Anti-soccer.png) not in used but in users pages, I can't see the different--OsamaK 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ack ABF and Ra'ike Ireas talk•de•en 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. /Slarre 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any answer for my questions? Remember that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion"--OsamaK 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't this fall under "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" not necessarily suitable for a speedy, but the fact that other similar but not the same images haven't been deleted isn't any sort of explanation of why this one shouldn't be, right? Jessamyn 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What about usera pages, aren't these one of Wikimedia's project pages? there are too many images that don't use but in a user page (e.g. Personal photos..).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, if it will be deleted, I'll request all these images above (and othere) ;) (can't see the different).--OsamaK 10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will tell you the difference. Flags/coats of arms/seals are symbols of countries. When you put a cross on a flag of a country, you are insulting that country's nation. No-one will be offended if you dislike, hate or even disrespect music or football which is not the case for flags. --Meno25 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --Kjetil r 10:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone here who would support to ban this Osama troll? see [5], [6] and many more of obvious PD art (most of them deleted by others, sigh) Mutter Erde 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_The_Difficult_Lesson_%281884%29.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=9308780){kind=link}
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let´s do 2 votes: One for these people, who want to install you as admin and the other for these who want to ban you. I´m very curious. Mutter Erde 11:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mutter Erde, please try to stay calm and civil. Calling people names in a discussion remotely connected to Israel is like smoking in a petrol station. Rama 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be very useful to see this request too.--OsamaK 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Troll? Many users don't agree with that, you can see this link :).--OsamaK 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete:
- We do have numerous images which are not a direct encyclopedic nature. Remember that we feed images to all Wikimedia projects, like Wikinews for instance
- That the image is not of an encyclopedic nature remains to be proved
- We do host images for the benefit of users' pages
- We do host images which are scarcely used, if at all.
- Keep I agree with Rama. --Maderibeyza 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedfa is no place for antisemitic racist propaganda. Someone ban this troll. /Jebur 22:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. I would be grateful if you could refrain from insulting people. There is nothing antisemitic or racist in this image, your usage of the term "troll" in unwarranted. Rama 22:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image is an insult to Israel. Flags are symbols of countries. All flags should be treated with respect. Today someone puts a cross on Israeli flag, tomorrow someone will put a cross on the Saudi flag saying that Saudi are terrorists (because OsamaK is Saudi) then the American/Chinese/Russian etc flags. This will cause unnecessary site-wide drama. Remember that Commons is politically neutral as pointed out by Erik, a former member of the Board of trustees. Commons is not the place for solving the Arab Israeli conflict. --Meno25 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- {{ar|ما رأيك بصورة [[:Image:No god.PNG| كهذه[[ ألا تستطيع أن ترى فيها أسوأ أنواع الإهانة، احترام المعتقدات أهم بكثير من احترام أعلام الدول والشعارات، وبالمناسبة لست أهتم إذا قام أحد المستخدمين بوضع إشارة "خطأ" على علم السعودية، ويكيميديا كومنز هي مكتبة عامة؛ يوجد صور "أسوأ" بكثير من هذه، ستجدها في الأعلى. لست أبالي، لنحذف هذه الصورة، بشرط أن نعامل بقية الصور بنفس المنطلق. ويكيميديا ليست مؤسسة إلحادية إسرائيلة، ويكيميديا مؤسسة للجميع.}}
--OsamaK 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- English: What do you think about this image can't be seen the worst kind of insult, respect for religions is much more important than respect for the states and logos, I do not care if a user has upload an image includes a "cross" to Saudi flag. Wikimedia Commons is a public library; there are many pictures "worse" much than this (see them above) I don't care to delete this image, but we must delete other images. Wikimedia is not Israelis and atheists foundation, Wikimedia Foundation is for all.
--OsamaK 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. ~ bayo or talk 12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- All theses images will be deleted, I guess!--OsamaK 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Altough the discussion is closed already, here my opinion:
- A real use in Wikipedia or real life should be given. Commons should not be depository for selfmade symbols waiting to be used somewhere some day.
- Not very no-sign is a problem. If you dont want icecream eaten by children in your library you have a sign. This ok.
- A sign in a certain way calling for war against a state is not ok.
- So far for now Simplicius 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted --Zirland 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the results of this DR were overturned by subsequent UDEL requests. Please see the image's talk page for details. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:No Israel.svg (September 2009)
[edit]
Used solely for the purposes of hate by selected users. Unlike other anti-X files, this one is A) not a common graphic; B)aimed towards one country/culture; C) not used as a political statement against the government, but rather as a hate tool towards the people with an affinity towards that government. --TheXen (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- We've agreed to keep this photo. I don't have so much time to lose there. Please re-read the old discussions.--OsamaK 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy kept. No, we're not going to do this again. See all the past discussions on File talk:No Israel.svg. Rocket000 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I refuse to let you do that on the ground of a discussion that took place 3/4 of a year ago. It clearly missed the entire point that this image (As well as any flag with a big prohibitionary symbol, including File:Anti-Israel.jpg) are clearly meant to show hatred towards another race or culture. This is simply not the case with most of the other anti-whatever images, which are not used to preserve an age old quarrel between two cultures that can't give it a rest. This image is MEANT to portray hatred. Images, such as the anti-god image, are primarily used to show an affinity, and not as an attack on a single group or culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheXen (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- From looking at the 6 userpages containing the image (User:Waraqa, User:Radwan.salhi, User:Abdelrhman_1990, User:Yamanam/My_Political_View, User:Aboalbiss, and User:OsamaK) It is quite clear this image is being used by users with a political agenda. I would be just as upset to see a bunch of Israeli users with a Palestine flag with a prohibitionary symbol, as I imagine these 6 users would be. Wiki is not the place to further these situations, especially when neither side is in the right in the first place. - TheXen (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean we should delete the file. It's another issue, where DR isn't the right place. Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, something this image clearly violates many points of. - TheXen (talk)
- This was brought up in the previous DRs too. The end result of those debates were, pretty much, that this file was (still is) realistically useful for educational purposes, and fits our project scope. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, something this image clearly violates many points of. - TheXen (talk)
- That doesn't mean we should delete the file. It's another issue, where DR isn't the right place. Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- From looking at the 6 userpages containing the image (User:Waraqa, User:Radwan.salhi, User:Abdelrhman_1990, User:Yamanam/My_Political_View, User:Aboalbiss, and User:OsamaK) It is quite clear this image is being used by users with a political agenda. I would be just as upset to see a bunch of Israeli users with a Palestine flag with a prohibitionary symbol, as I imagine these 6 users would be. Wiki is not the place to further these situations, especially when neither side is in the right in the first place. - TheXen (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete – clearly a hate image. (NB: I'm not a troll, I saw this discussion at EnWiki, where I am active. TreasuryTag (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we're going through this again I would hope to see new, and stronger arguments, as to why this should be deleted. We don't have a NPOV policy on Commons. Participants may want to read through the previous DRs. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see what is not strong about the point that its sole purpose is to continue perpetuating a violent conflict, and that something such as that is inherently counter to the peaceful goals of wikimedia, including commons. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's more of a personal interpretation of the file. This can very well be used in articles such as Anti-Zionism. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, the image does not have "GO TO HELL JEWS" written on it. However, if this is my interpretation as a Canadian athiest, I imagine a lot of people (Esp those involved with these conflicts) will make much more serious interpretations. If that is the case, I would still like to see the image removed from userpages, as it is certainly not being used for an educational purpose there. - TheXen (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's more of a personal interpretation of the file. This can very well be used in articles such as Anti-Zionism. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see what is not strong about the point that its sole purpose is to continue perpetuating a violent conflict, and that something such as that is inherently counter to the peaceful goals of wikimedia, including commons. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions –Juliancolton | Talk 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please specify what point in the previous discussion and not simply "It was kept before" so that we can counter. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd first need a valid reason for deletion. Commons is neither neutral nor censored. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given a couple of policies that plainly state that commons is not the place to propagate hate. I subjectively feel that this image portrays the hatred between Palestine and Israel and serves no educational purpose. "Commons/Wikipedia is not censored" is a redundant argument, as it holds the same weight as Ignore All Rules. - TheXen (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is IAR relevant here? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not, just like "commons is not censored" isn't relevant. - 70.53.44.37 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- What? You're proposing this image for deletion because it is used for "purposes of hate", and you say the fact that Commons is not censored is irrelevant? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well... yea. You can apply that argument to every image that's up for deletion. - 99.227.74.32 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- What? You're proposing this image for deletion because it is used for "purposes of hate", and you say the fact that Commons is not censored is irrelevant? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not, just like "commons is not censored" isn't relevant. - 70.53.44.37 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is IAR relevant here? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given a couple of policies that plainly state that commons is not the place to propagate hate. I subjectively feel that this image portrays the hatred between Palestine and Israel and serves no educational purpose. "Commons/Wikipedia is not censored" is a redundant argument, as it holds the same weight as Ignore All Rules. - TheXen (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd first need a valid reason for deletion. Commons is neither neutral nor censored. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please specify what point in the previous discussion and not simply "It was kept before" so that we can counter. - TheXen (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is tough for me to say anywhere but, Speedy delete based on whatever the equivalent to w:Wikipedia:Attack page is, here. (Note that I'm hardly ever here on commons, so trying to engage me personally in a debate on this is going to be somewhat pointless. I just wanted to voice my support against allowing attack images.)Ohms law (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I starting thinking about why things like this comes up again and again. Even when you have policies that make it as clear as possible, they still don't see it. It's not the we're disagreeing about anything really. No one's arguing that this isn't offensive to some people. No one's arguing that this isn't "hate propaganda". No one's arguing that hate is a bad thing. We might as well be talking about two completely different things.
One side is looking at the gun, they other side is looking at the person holding it. You know the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". An image out of context is just an image. It's how it is used that makes it right or wrong, or rather, an instrument for right or wrong (and that's when personal beliefs come into play). Unlike guns where, good or bad, they have an obvious and intentional violent/destructive aspect (regardless of what you shoot at), images are a lot more flexible. This image is being used in the mainspace of at least one Wikipedia (there were more before). And it's being used in a legitimate way: to illustrate a real issue in the world. (Actually, guns can be used to teach people what a gun is too, but usually a picture works just fine.) Regardless, Commons is not the place to decide if it should be used in a certain article or not. The fact that it is or can be (not counting those very temporary situations, like vandalism). That's an editorial decision and should be made locally. If we started deleting whatever we didn't like, well, I know I wouldn't upload to Commons anymore if uploading locally meant I wouldn't have to worry about it getting deleted because some group of people over at Commons think they knew better and had the right/authority to remove things they don't approve of. Some sites have local uploads turned of so they don't even have this choice.
Using the word "hate" doesn't change the fact that it's still a POV. As long as there is more than one side, nothing is absolute. Claiming otherwise makes it impossible to compromise. Two different absolutes can not logically coexist. Why would you even consider trying to see things their way? That would be absurd if things weren't relative and you knew that... (I had a lot more typed out here before saving, but turning a deletion request into a debate on metaphysics isn't going to get us anywhere. lol.)
I personally dislike when users put anything to do with politics, race, religion, etc. on their userpage. Not only is it completely irrelevant, but injecting real-life drama into a multicultural environment like this only compounds the naturally-forming wikidrama and makes everything a lot less enjoyable for everyone. I would much rather talk about creating a userpage policy banning images like rather than banning it completely for both good and bad uses. Rocket000 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I would be happier to see this image (And others used in a similar manner) forbidden in the userspace, for the sole reason that it creates unnecessary drama. - 99.227.74.32 14:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep The fact of the matter, which you can observe from other deletion discussions, is that it is not this type of image that is the problem, but any image potentially harmful to the state of Israel. Deleting this image is not going to defuse controversy but rather give encouragement to those who want to censor the commons. --Simonxag (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with harm to the state of Israel, but rather advertising your hatred for the people of Israel because you have a problem with the state of Israel. Again, if the picture is keepable, its use on userpages is not. - 70.53.44.37 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- DR isn't the place for that. I would say notifying the user(s) is the approach to go. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Or write up a userpage policy on it and try getting consensus. (Note that it would only apply to Commons' userpages; we can't control other projects but they can have their own policies on the matter.) I personally don't have issues with people expressing their views so I wouldn't necessarily support it, but I wouldn't oppose either because this isn't MySpace/Facebook. All that crap is irrelevant and doesn't make Commons better. Actually, I would support if it meant we wouldn't have to keep wasting time on deletion requests like this.. yet, I know it won't stop them. People will always find things to get offended over. Some people are more interested in suppressing than expressing. That's why they're here. Rocket000 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with harm to the state of Israel, but rather advertising your hatred for the people of Israel because you have a problem with the state of Israel. Again, if the picture is keepable, its use on userpages is not. - 70.53.44.37 18:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it is used. Those uses are debatable, but commons should not delete files if most (or even all) uses are debatable. If commons can't be trusted to keep files which are used and which have a "free" license, people may stop uploading to commons (the interpretations of "free" cause enough heat already). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Please stop being silly and find something useful you can do for Wikimedia projects or the free software movement. Commons community understands that the users are free to write their political opinions on their userpages. It understands that there is no 'promised land' in case of judging photos. It has so much work to be done other than stupid endless discussions. Commons is all about hosting photos, it's not about what's right and what's wrong in the Arab/Muslim-Israeli conflict. So I'm not really interested in repeating the old talks, they're still in the archive.--OsamaK 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I can see how this image is made to provoke anger anywhere, within and outside the Arab–Israeli conflict participants, on either side of the fence. The image is born of hatred, mistrust and non-equality; and even if removed, will only be duplicated, since it gives a possible depiction of a disagreement, which is real and genuine, has been for decades, and will continue for some time -- and is thankfully covered by several fine articles in Wikipedia.
As Wikimedia does concern with topics which are real - I can see how this image is within the scope of any project. The fact that a user chooses, and is allowed, to express things he feels strongly about (be it due to hate, feelings of distress, or any other reason), is topic for discussion on user pages do's and don'ts, from Wikimedia's standpoint, and from the users'.
Any way, I don’t think that placing a symbol (be it pro or anti any given subject) on a user page serves anyone with an actual vehicle of propaganda. I am speculating here - but I can guess that most readers are probably either unaware of, or don't really mind, user pages.
On a personal note, as an Israeli I do find it offensive for people to use this specific image as a way of expressing their identity. But, if I were anti-gay, I would probably feel the same towards people using the Rainbow flag on their user pages. Perhaps this is why "not censored" is, in fact, relevant. 93.172.134.232 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This (and most probably all other no-x flag images) do not fall within the Commons:Project scope. They are obviously not meant to be used for educational purposes, which is also indicated by their sole use on Wikipedia user pages for hate statements. It would be different if they would be used for legit purposes on Wikipedia articles. 76.182.102.23 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, they most certainly ARE in scope if they're used. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I objected last time these images were up for deletion, and I haven't changed my mind. This image is not a call for a new holocaust, it is against the state of Israel (a subtle distinction from the jewish people, I grant you). Maybe the image is offensive, but so are a lot of our images, and we keep them. We do not delete images which are racist, sexist, ageist, etc, if they have a reasonable use, and their description/name is not offensive. The name here is "No israel", which is not offensive, unlike say "Israel should burn in hell". The description is to the point. Moreover, it is within scope because it is in use on other projects. We do not censor commons, nor should we try. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - This file can be used in userboxes as well as articles, there for it is within Commons scope.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- It should be restricted to articles only. It's use on userpages, while certainly possible to do in a non-hateful way, is now limited almost exclusively to a message of hate. That does not fall within the project scope. - Floydian (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid argument presented. Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. Ar.wikipedia uses the file within Neturei Karta article . File is used in 4 wikis and commons. Tarawneh (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:No_Israel.svg (May 2010)
[edit]
This image is clearly discriminatory. Its use in user pages is a terrible violation of a Pillar of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EQ Ferbr1 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - per last DR, Commons is not wikipedia. Commons can not dictate file use within other project. Projects set its own image standards. We shouldn't delete this image when it is in legitimate use on other projects. I just want to get rid of it as a political statement from commons userpages. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope You can read this:
Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
This image is "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I think that not: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/No_Israel.svg
- In http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples you can read this:
Examples
Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
- Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.
- Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept.
- Advertising or self-promotion.
- Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
This image is used for the most part in user's pages, with an aim of attack... Ferbr1 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- To quote your quote, Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. Could easily be used in an article on anti-Israeli sentiments. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Killing it here isn't going to deal with the fact that it's used on many, many user pages, mostly on the Arabic Wikipedia. And we generally do host images that are in heavy use on other Wikimedia projects, even if only on user pages. On the other hand, killing it here may stop it from spreading. --Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)- Delete: If you knew why it was made & why is it used, you would want to remove it immediately. It provokes racism & hatred for no reason, when I'm sure that a similar flag for Saudi Arabian or other Pan-Arabist/Islamist country won't be tolerated by the ones who are using the picture in the templates in their pages. Delete it quickly, because it is unfair. Wikipedia is not a place for hate & discrimination. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC) While reviewing who is using it, I was shocked to see a user called Good Muslim using it! Can't a person be a good Muslim without being anti-Israeli! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Mahmudmasri wrote -- "If you knew why it was made & why is it used..." -- Isn't the important point simply that images like this are made and do get used? Therefore, this picture exemplifies (and can educate people about) a real and notable genre of symbols. Just as Wikimedia Commons has pictures of flags being burned, which has nothing to do with whether or not we approve of flag-burning. It simply illustrates (and can educate people about) the reality that flag-burning happens. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Used by many people and in a Wikipedia article..--OsamaK 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is a media server that has to contain a neutral picture of our world: the good and the bad things. If we remove it, it will pop up elsewhere anyway. --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Deleting a file because it "insights hatred" is like shooting the messenger to make the problem go away. Anti-semitism and similar sentiments are a form of mental retardation that lives in the minds of the people who hate, not in the image that they use to express themselves. Besides, deleting the image is giving in to the fear that these people are trying to evoke.
That aside, as has been pointed out earlier by others, an image without a context cannot rightfully be said to insight, invoke or call for anything — context determines full meaning. And Commons, being a storage facility, by definition lacks the context to make any image offensive. Simply put, if this image were to be banned from Commons for being offensive, then Commons can also not have any business storing Media:Nazi Swastika.svg. -- BenTels (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) 
Comment Sorry, I don't understand why this No-something file was requested for deletion in isolation. There are plenty of them on Commons. I think best solution is policy on No-something files, not isolated deletion requests which may be closed depending on view of particular person. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because this isn't the same. There are a lot of no symbols that have limited scope; no smoking generally means you can't smoke where the sign is displayed. This one even in a limited interpretation calls for the destruction of a nation, and ties into the destruction and subjugation of the ethnicity that calls that nation home. To lump this in with all no-something files is to over- and mis-categorize.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm pro information but against hate. Use of flags and insignias in this way only promotes hate and that is not something we should promote. Especially if users on some Wikipedias use this depiction on Commons as a reason for accepting hate propaganda. The same holds for all other such hate propaganda on Commons. It is claimed that deleting this kind of hate propaganda will also lead to deletion of Nazi Swastikas, but that is not correct. It will lead to deletion of no-Nazi -types of propaganda and will not have any effect on use of Nazi Swastikas at all. Organizations using a kind of no-Nazi insignia will anyhow pass as the sign is their insignia. So perhaps there is some organization that wants to use this no-Israel depiction as their insignia, so be it - use it - but don't keep it just because someone thinks Commons should be used as a hate propaganda store. Most likely this image will end in a keep, but I would anyhow say what I think about such material on Commons. Jeblad (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really mean "no-Nazi" propaganda (e.g. a crossed-out swastika as sometimes used by militant anti-fascists) or do you mean "neo-Nazi" propaganda? Deleting either sort of material would seem to go against the established Commons policy which says it is "not appropriate" to object to a flag being available in Commons on grounds that (for instance) it's used by terrorists.
- Quote from Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view
- Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include... • Flags/emblems: “That is not the official version”, “the colors are not officially-approved”, “that design is used by a terrorist group”.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as hurt national pride is not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I'd like to point out that Wikimedia is NOT a democracy and I hope the admins realize the motives of the people who voted "keep". This is so obvious it should be removed, I find this very discussion an insult to my intelligence. 79.180.63.73 18:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, how about you explain to us who are obviously at your level of mental enlightenment why exactly this should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I won't be dragged into a stupid argument, so I'll say this as simply as I can: This image is a hate propaganda. No amount of cleverly crafted arguments will change that obvious-to-everyone fact. 79.180.63.73 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. All I wanted to know was why you wanted it deleted, as simply saying that it's obvious is obviously not obvious to the people who said keep (obviously). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I won't be dragged into a stupid argument, so I'll say this as simply as I can: This image is a hate propaganda. No amount of cleverly crafted arguments will change that obvious-to-everyone fact. 79.180.63.73 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, how about you explain to us who are obviously at your level of mental enlightenment why exactly this should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm sorry if I come out as obnoxious. I don't care about national pride. I'm an Israeli and this image pretty much calls out for suicide bombers to kill me. If this image was used in a header of a list of terrorist groups it would be another story. But it's only used in Wikipedia to spread hate. How would you react in my place? 79.180.63.73 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Here is an image search which shows (on the 1st page) three different versions of the crossed-out Israeli flag, being used (outside of the Wikipedias) to express opposition to Israel...
http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=boycott+Israel A question for people who want to delete this graphic -- why doesn't it fall into the following category? ... "Preexisting designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes" which according to Commons policy "are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence." http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Because this picture's sole purpose on Wikimedia is to be used for nationalistic, religious or racist causes. It's not a "by the way, some people might be offended". ChaosFish (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been almost three weeks since the last request, and more than a year and a half since the first request, and this image is still here. Disgraceful. Hello! Someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. ChaosFish (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This whole discussion makes me sick. It has no point at all.--OsamaK 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. no point in deleting the image, besides the same result could be still technically achieved with the image being deleted... so pointless DR. User:Esby/anti... Esby (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
File:No Israel.svg (October 2010)
[edit]
anti-semitic campaign which raises doubt the right of exitence of Israel, probably some jew hate. And another thing: files like "anti-islam got deleted and "anti-israel"-files have a supreme prerogative of existence? So how does that work? I think, Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, even this file is used on arabic spoken articles ONLY!!! No, i won't support and accept that. Justice for all!!! Saviour1981 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia is not a place to promote hate, except against Arabic speakers? That was a bad place to put a comma splice, IMO. It's a freely licensed legal image that's used on over 100 pages on 4 wikis; I don't see that we should ever delete such an image, nor that deleting it would do any good but stir up further upset.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: As offending this anti-Israel logo might be to many people, it is within COM:SCOPE as it is used by multiple Wikipedia articles. Take اطوري كارتا as an example which is about Neturei Karta, a Jewish group that opposes Zionism and the state of Israel. As you might see from this Fox News report, this logo is actually worn by members of this group (it is to be seen by the interviewed spokesman of the Neturei Karta movement in New York, Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, at 0:20) and also during demonstrations by this group (at 0:44). This group is currently to be found in 23 Wikipedia projects and surely notable. In consequence, it is just natural to have one of the logos used by that group at Wikimedia Commons. That does not mean that Wikimedia Commons or any other Wikimedia project endorses the views of this group or that logo, it just means that we need it in the context of these articles. (That this logo is also used on some user pages here and elsewhere is something I find highly inappropriate but this is a separate problem.) --AFBorchert (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File:Anti-Islamism.svg and File:No Sharia.svg can both be considered anti-Islamic yet neither have even been nominated for deletion. That isn't to say I am in favour of such images being used on user pages but that does somewhat draw into question Saviour1981's that anti-Islamic images aren't allowed whilst anti-Israel images are. The situation is much more complicated than some want to imply is the main point to appreciate. Whilst I have expressed my concerns about the use of images like this, looking at the previous discussions it is difficult to see how, when the reason given for deletion is pretty much the same, the outcome would be any different. I therefore wonder if we really need to waste anymore time discussing this. Adambro (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept per Adambro - no new reason why this should be deleted, consensus from previous DRs seems clear. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
File:No_Israel.svg (September / October 2011)
[edit]
Hate propaganda, used on arab user pages for hate speech or hostility explanations to Israel only. Wikimedia Commons really shouldn't be a place for racism, fascism, religious craze or other nationalistic propaganda --Saviour1981 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per the 3 past nominations. No new arguments brought to this deletion request. Tm (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The same user reopening the same DR is contentious. No new arguments have been brought up; it's still massively in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Many of those uses should be removed per the userpage policy present on most other wikimedia sites. "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense...Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia...don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."
- But hey commons is just a suppository, er repository. - Floydian (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly out of Common's scope. Old arguments were based on popularity and not on policy and were illegitimate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which policy are you, Ottava Rima, citing for saying this file is out of scope? Tm (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Scope is a policy. As the policy says, images with hateful intent can only be justified if they are used to illustrate an article, but this image is solely for user pages to make attacks on another's nationality. That makes the image not qualified for being hosted here. The image is not connected to the Neturei Karta, nor does it belong on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which policy are you, Ottava Rima, citing for saying this file is out of scope? Tm (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
(comment bellow added by me after this deletion request been closed) Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know perfectly well what Wikimedia Commons scope is. This file shows what is anti-semitism, that is scope. I beg you, please stop saying that your arguments supplants all others peoples arguments and that theirs arguments are illegitimate. By making this statement you are potencially and unfairly insulting all the persons that made "keep" arguments or the fact that this file was kepted on 3 of its 4 previous deletion request and undeleted after the first one, basing its rationales on our policies.
- But most important the policie you link says (emphasis made by me):
"File in use in another Wikimedia project A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.". This image is used in this this and this articles in the AR Wikipedia, and several userpages (more than 100) of several wikis. So this file is clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- From the scope: "Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." This article in Ar.wiki is not about a "hate group" nor is this a symbol of said hate group. The image does not actually illustrate the article from what I have been told by Arabic speakers and looks not to be appropriate to the article in any manner. This is necessary under scope - you cannot just randomly add images to an article in hope to keep them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - still in use on ar.wp in an article, therefore not out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo of Azerbaijan Premier League. Dinamik (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is logo created be me, so deserves to be kept --Alakbaroff (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Surely not entirely own work, false author claim. --Martin H. (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo of Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan. Dinamik (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is logo created be me, so deserves to be kept --Alakbaroff (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Surely not entirely own work. --Martin H. (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested by uploader Servitiu (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a German WW2 aircraft, no evidence this is a Soviet photograph. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As long as there's no information about the place and time of first publication, its copyright status can't be verified. --Kam Solusar (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reopened discussion at request of user:JuergenKlueser. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The argument, that this is a German plane is wrong. The original design was done in Germany by Junkers engineers for the Junkers Ju 287. The soviet army took those plans to the Soviet Union, where it was further developped and build. The picture definitively shows the russian version. Refer to en:OKB-1 EF 131
I do not know about details of the russian copyright laws, but they apply. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - Then delete for missing author, source, publication date. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source/author/date of first publication. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Credited to some "Wijen" (apparently not a WMF user) on the en.WP version, tagged (by me) as missing a permission on en.WP. Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete deleted on en.WP. --Eusebius (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal picture. Low quality. Unused since January Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 10:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
unnecessarily subsequent uploaded JPG version of STS-134 crew patch --Ras67 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No FOP for sculpture in the USA. Hammering Man is still in copyright. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The PD-70 tag is false since it has not even been 70 years since the end of the Great Patriotic War. The PD-Ukraine tag is false because this photograph was taken in the RSFSR and no evdience the photographer is Ukrainian. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC) OK. That's up to you to decide. The photo was taken in the Crimea, which is clearly written, but at this time it was not part of the Ukraine, but of RSFSR. Anyway, do what's best for Wikipedia. ISasha (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- A lot of the photographs from the GPW were placed backed into copyright due to a 2008 Russian law. Many of the images were changed to PD Ukraine, even though there is no connection to the Ukraine at all with the photographs. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this picture was first published in Ukraine or taken by an Ukrainan. Kameraad Pjotr 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Author is wrong, not created by the hu.wp user, a set of licenses is selected but all are wrong. Martin H. (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Updated license to Public Domain - Old. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Based on what? The template says the author died 70 years ago, but no author is mentioned, so the new license tag is again wrong. The additional text says it is pd because it was published 15 years ago, but no 15 years old publication is mentioned, so the claim is also wrong (and, however, very questionable). The only source is a website. The website was surely not the author and likely is the website not even the gateway for this image to find its way from print to digital world. Examining this gateway would be neccessary to even say, if the author is unknown as the image description now claims too withouth providing the smalles evidence for that. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- keep-The text says public domain after 15 years counted from the end of the calendar year in which they were first published. The photo was certainly published no later than one of two dates-1933 and 1947, as a serving head of state and active Scout addressing the world's foremost Scout event. If we count the more likely 1933, then 1948 is the PD mark. If we count 1947, after which all internal history of Scouting in Hungary was suppressed, but continued in exile, then 1962 is the target PD date. Even if we give it a later date, 1956 or 1990, as the next periods of openness, that still leaves us with 1971 or 2005 as the target date. By any standard, according to extant Hungarian law, this image is PD. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if the 'text' is even valid - however, assuming your interpretation and calculation is correct: Based on what publication? --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per Hungarian Copyright law, "In case the person of the author is unknown, the term of protection shall be seventy years and shall be counted from the first day of the year following the first disclosure of the work." At this time the author is unknown, therefore this work's copyright expiration would be 1934 plus 70 years, or 2004. So I believe the current PD license is valid. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again an argument stressing a point of time following the publication --- so again: based on what publication? If you say something is pd because 70 years passed since its publication you must refer to a publication and not simply assume it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to check with a fellow I know who has copies of the Jamboree newspaper, Magyar Czerkész, to validate that the photo was published there. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Answer: Given the backlog in deletion requests you have much more time ;) --Martin H. (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- The owner of the collection of the Jamboree newspaper, Magyar Czerkész, remembers seeing that image, but he cannot verify it, as he gave his collection away. While I cannot establish the original author, I did verify the original publication date as being concurrent with the event depicted by the photo. I hope this suffices. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can we close this deletion request? It's been pending for more than 2 months. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The owner of the collection of the Jamboree newspaper, Magyar Czerkész, remembers seeing that image, but he cannot verify it, as he gave his collection away. While I cannot establish the original author, I did verify the original publication date as being concurrent with the event depicted by the photo. I hope this suffices. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to check with a fellow I know who has copies of the Jamboree newspaper, Magyar Czerkész, to validate that the photo was published there. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Answer: Given the backlog in deletion requests you have much more time ;) --Martin H. (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again an argument stressing a point of time following the publication --- so again: based on what publication? If you say something is pd because 70 years passed since its publication you must refer to a publication and not simply assume it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per Hungarian Copyright law, "In case the person of the author is unknown, the term of protection shall be seventy years and shall be counted from the first day of the year following the first disclosure of the work." At this time the author is unknown, therefore this work's copyright expiration would be 1934 plus 70 years, or 2004. So I believe the current PD license is valid. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if the 'text' is even valid - however, assuming your interpretation and calculation is correct: Based on what publication? --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication, no author, no evidence for public domain status. Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
