Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
private unused image, undescribed - unusable and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio - posed publicity shot ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tabercil: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stapleton.jpg: Copyvio - posed publicity shot
Copyvio - posed publicity shot ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - all of the uploading editor's files appear to be someone else's work that they are claiming as their own. This is obviously a posed publicity shot and a copyright violation. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tabercil: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur-godfrey.jpg: Copyvio - posed publicity shot
Posed puiblicity shot ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tabercil: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eve-Plumb.jpg: Posed puiblicity shot
Obvious copyvio (publicity shot) ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tabercil: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andy-taylor.jpg: Obvious copyvio (publicity shot)
private image - the article where it is used will be deleted speedily (portugese wp) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete images is used, but only on a page that will most likely be deleted soon. personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete perfectly out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, slightly blurred Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused, per nom. Amada44 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused selfportrait, out of scope (user is blocked) Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. Amada44 (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Elekhh (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete dito: per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, can't be used for anything Amada44 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Collage merging at least 3 different creations. More information about the source pictures is necessary. As the uploader is also the model, it is possible that the picture belongs to a different photographer. Teofilo (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, does not seem useful, not in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Image is of poor quality, plus there is no indication of age of the photographer so we have an image that might technically qualify as child porn. Nominated for deletion per COM:SEX. Tabercil (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:SEX is still in proposal stage, but I say delete this as totally useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete useless. Amada44 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete despite the dubious or irrelevent allegations of the nominator (a butt crack is "child porn"?!?). It is a blurry low quality orphan. I see no reason to invoke "COM:SEX"; whether it is a bad quality photo of someone's butt or someone's elbow, it is a bad quality image of something common and is useless for project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- its fine people, there are worse quality photos out here, and of worse things than a persons bumb, live and let live, that's what i say! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadayada238 (talk • contribs)
- Delete as per Infrogmation. We have many clear pictures of butts that also lack the unattractive and distracting background.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete half private - half the advertisement of a model agency (?! - should be) - whatever: out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange drawing - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused undescribed strange drawing - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused small drawing - should be graphics for wikibooks, but unusable for other purposes Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private something - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation, no COM:FOP#France. Uploader removed the {{Copyvio}} tag complaining about retaliation, but I do not know what for. I have been tagging many murals in France and in Belgium these past few days. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is done is retaliation. On the DR, for a copyright to exist, there needs to be a copyright owner. Who is the copyright owner in this case? There is none, therefore there is no copyright. QED. Yann (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we delete photo's of murals taken in Belgium and France (both no FOP) all the time, why wouldn't we do it now? The is an author (or maybe multiple) but we just don't know who he or she is. That doesn't mean it suddenly becomes free! Multichill (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Two more: File:Villeneuve1.jpg and File:Sous-marin.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused selfpromotion of a german architect, no concept art, private files, unusable (out of scope) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused small private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image from brazil, selfpromotion and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
scan of a recent book - copy right violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Eusebius (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please clarify. The image is of the map. Some of its parts contain poor reproduction of buildings merely to amend that map. Those buildings are historical and are long out of copyright. Materialscientist (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map as well as the photographs are copyrightable, and copyrighted unless proven otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map is an outdoor poster with no copyright signs. The map and images are of a Russian and UNESCO Heritage site (open-air museum Kizhi) containing wooden churches of 14-18 century.[1][2] Such objects, their pictures and maps are never copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Same answer as before: no sign of public domain anywhere. The buildings themselves might be in the public domain by age (I don't know about it), but it does not extend to any picture taken of them. And a map can be copyrighted. --Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map is an outdoor poster with no copyright signs. The map and images are of a Russian and UNESCO Heritage site (open-air museum Kizhi) containing wooden churches of 14-18 century.[1][2] Such objects, their pictures and maps are never copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map as well as the photographs are copyrightable, and copyrighted unless proven otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- ↑ Kizhi Pogost at UNESCO
- ↑ Decree N 1847 on November 6, 1993 by the President of Russia (in Russian)
Excuse me, I am the photographer. It is a picture taken from a public information table on the isle, anybody can see it. I don't think that it has any copyright, how you can read above from Materialscientist. Therefore it is PD. 
Keep.--44penguins (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it IS copyrighted by default, the fact that you're not aware of it is not relevant. --Eusebius (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please clarify. The image is of the map. Some of its parts contain poor reproduction of buildings merely to amend that map. Those buildings are historical and are long out of copyright. Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map as well as the photographs are copyrightable, and copyrighted unless proven otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map is an outdoor poster with no copyright signs. The map and images are of a Russian and UNESCO Heritage site (open-air museum) containing wooden churches of 14-18 century.[1][2] Such objects, their pictures and maps are never copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? Such objects, pictures and maps are copyrighted, without the need for a copyright notice, unless proven otherwise. Please have a thorough look at COM:L, COM:DW and COM:CB. --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please be clearer on what specifically are you questioning (that the photo is of a poster, that the depictured churches are out of copyright, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? Such objects, pictures and maps are copyrighted, without the need for a copyright notice, unless proven otherwise. Please have a thorough look at COM:L, COM:DW and COM:CB. --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map is an outdoor poster with no copyright signs. The map and images are of a Russian and UNESCO Heritage site (open-air museum) containing wooden churches of 14-18 century.[1][2] Such objects, their pictures and maps are never copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The map as well as the photographs are copyrightable, and copyrighted unless proven otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot be clearer: unless proven otherwise, the map is copyrighted, the photos are copyrighted (the fact that the subject of the photos is in the public domain is irrelevant here), uploading/hosting them is a copyright violation. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let me clarify my post - the map is part, that an exhibit, of a huge museum, which consists of island Kizhi and surrounding area. The museum is federal and is declared a national heritage.[2] The map is authored to the federal ministry (not even local government), as written at its top. How can it be copyrighted? Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- How can it be copyrighted? Simple: every original work is copyrighted by default, by the mere act of creation, unless stated otherwise by the author or by law. To the best of my knowledge there is no copyright exemption in Russia for works of the federal administration, as it is the case in the US, so nothing you say is related to copyright. Have you read the links I have provided you, explaining the concept of copyright, our requirements on Commons, the concept of a derivative work, how it may or may not be free, and what kind of work can or cannot be uploaded? You're not expected to know everything about copyright when contributing, but when you're told that you've made a mistake, and referred to the project policies as an explanation, you're at least expected to read them before arguing. Once again, nothing you have said in this discussion is related to the copyright status of this work. --Eusebius (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- ↑ Kizhi Pogost at UNESCO
- ↑ a b Decree N 1847 on November 6, 1993 by the President of Russia (in Russian)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - taken from http://www.telesouvenirs.com/ts/starts.asp?IdStar=LouiseJoseeMondoux Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
blurred unusable image of some advertisement - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment as far as I see the images of this user are part of technoculture (see joinyvision via google at youtube), made in technoclubs, some are not bad, but all are unsourced. Obviously they are selfmade. Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - small, blurred - out of scope (description seems to be a joke) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, description looks like a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: looks like - but it is a musician from switzerland, several hits with google (newspaper talkes about a new rockstar from switzerland), weak keep Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- in this case: Keep. thanks for checking that! Amada44 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia. Commemorates 1988 event. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete it. Lzhl (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC).
- I load this photo to russian wikipedia: w:ru:File:In_memory_of_the_killed_on_4_june_1988.jpg. Lzhl (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC).
- Delete There is no COM:FOP in the former Soviet states at all sadly so WikiCommons cannot keep it. If this monument featured a plane or helicopter or aircraft that had utilitarian use, then it can be kept, but this is not the case here. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
A non-specific "soccer team logo". Out of scope. Quibik (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange handwriting - out of scope, no valid source Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused image from the preparations of an exhibition in NY - out of scope, useless (if kept, please add categories) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange drawing with text - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete blurry orphan image, presumably some personal or vanity promotion; no in scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private data from a gps - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
nice and interesting people (nearly a mathematician) - but unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisement for a hospital in italy - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisement for a hospital in rimini / Italy - out of scope (for me) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphan Quibik (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
i have uploaded this pic while traveling much too large for my comfort & copyright concerns, and the tags and descriptions were also insufficient. i already uploaded the correct size file with much improved description Schoci (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean "copyright"? Are you or are you not the owner of this? -Nard the Bard 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I can tell, the uploader is attempting to revoke all of his licensed contributions to Wikimedia, for reasons that have yet to be explained. Image seems useful; currently in use in Wikipedias in 3 languages. Infrogmation (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep my impression is that the author wants to revoke his full-size pictures and offer us thumbnail sized instead. I'm getting a little tired of that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
False source claim. This is an AP photo. E.g., [1].--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, possibly copyvio. Quibik (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This model is probably not famous enough. Wikipedia article en:Hanna Beth has been marked as a speedy deletion request. Teofilo (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Image has the tag on it of "lotusjosephine.com", and that site says on the front page "(C) 2009". There's no indication of permission for this image with the upload. As for Teofilo's assertion, I don't see how that's relevant... it's a classic glamour pose so it can be used for something other than illustrating an article about Hanna Beth. Tabercil (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pictures showing non famous people are "family and friends" people deletable as out of COM:SCOPE. Teofilo (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
per COM:PEOPLE this is an identifiable person in a (presumeably) private location with no evidence of the subject's consent to upload it. Little chance of obtaining permission since the Flickr account is no longer available. 99of9 (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- As pointed out by others below, this was a thoroughly undocumented copyvio presented as a personal image in a personal Flickr account. I have struck my good faith assumption that the Flickr user was abiding by copyright laws and that this was a friend of his/hers. The fact that this user was actually behaving even worse than I originally accused does not mean my nomination was wrong, and does not mean I am simply changing "tactics". --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A number of these "Sam" photos were deleted before, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bottomless Sam.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete That's not just some random person in a private location. That's former Czech nude model Zuzana Kourilova. See this page (NSFW) for example. One of the small thumbnails on that page ([[2]) was clearly taken during the same photoshoot as this image. As there's no way to verify that the flickr user shot these photos himself, delete it. --77.23.215.24 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete in this case, it should be deleted. can we include the other sam image: File:Underwear_Sam.jpg. Its the same setting. Amada44 (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.modelshrines.com/models/z/zuzana-kourilova/05.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep She is professional model. She isn't a private person who wanted only to play. --Starscream (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A model is not a private person. I'm convinced the deletion rationale of COM:PEOPLE is not supportable.Mattnad (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Flickr user did not make these photos and violated copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. Maybe not. There is nothing here that supports your statement. But the deletion request above has nothing to do with Copyvio anyway.Mattnad (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lawyering my deletion request wording is not useful. At that time, the profoundly educational description had nothing to do with Kourilova, so I had no way of knowing that it was not private. But the fact that this is a professional shoot actually raises the bar. Now it becomes highly unlikely that a random deleted flikr user is the professional photographer. Do you think a professional would label the image with such a useless and fake description? This is a classic case of a Flikr washing account. Definite delete in my books. --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- No so much layering, as pointing our how easy it is for anyone to trot out different claims and see which one sticks if they happen to have a beef with a photo. So are you going to amend your original rationale since you now admit you were woefully and completely wrong? How many other perfectly fine photos have been tossed out of the commons because of unfounded tactics like yours? If there's Copyvio, fine, but I find it a bit irritating how some folk just keep changing the argument until they get what they want even if they are wrong (as you must admit you were in your initial beef).Mattnad (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have added a comment to the rationale. Deletion reviews is an open forum - you are welcome to examine any of my other deletion nominations and propose them for undeletion if you can justify them. --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- No so much layering, as pointing our how easy it is for anyone to trot out different claims and see which one sticks if they happen to have a beef with a photo. So are you going to amend your original rationale since you now admit you were woefully and completely wrong? How many other perfectly fine photos have been tossed out of the commons because of unfounded tactics like yours? If there's Copyvio, fine, but I find it a bit irritating how some folk just keep changing the argument until they get what they want even if they are wrong (as you must admit you were in your initial beef).Mattnad (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lawyering my deletion request wording is not useful. At that time, the profoundly educational description had nothing to do with Kourilova, so I had no way of knowing that it was not private. But the fact that this is a professional shoot actually raises the bar. Now it becomes highly unlikely that a random deleted flikr user is the professional photographer. Do you think a professional would label the image with such a useless and fake description? This is a classic case of a Flikr washing account. Definite delete in my books. --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. Maybe not. There is nothing here that supports your statement. But the deletion request above has nothing to do with Copyvio anyway.Mattnad (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Flickr user did not make these photos and violated copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteRegarding copyvio, the request does address it: "Little chance of obtaining permission...". Not obtaining permission to use an almost-certainly copyrighted image is a copyright violation. 24.128.227.73 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a reasonably obvious copyvio. It doesn't matter what the original reason given was; if the image is wrong for Commons, let's get rid of it. If not, let's keep it. Please keep complaints about "tactics" to other, more appropriate forums. JesseW (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A flickr deleted account with erotica is almost always due to copyright violations. Nastytroll (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Uses Wikipedia logo which is all rights reserved and thus this image is a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Wikimedia official logos are all copyrighted as well, but we host those. If the portion using the logo stays, Template:CopyrightByWikimedia needs to be slapped on there. Suggest reverting to older version without it though, as this would avoid any issues. Jujutacular T · C 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wikimedia official logos are fine as they are sanctioned by the WMF (they're official). However, such unofficial uses as this card violate the rights of the WMF by the creation of unsanctioned derivative works. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree we should keep the image, but revert back to the very similar revision from 10:40, 17 July 2008 that lacks the WMF logo and delete the revisions that contain the logo. I don't see any reason to stay with a revision with the logo, as that unnecessarily encumbers the image with licensing restrictions. —RP88 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then consider my !vote a keep, on the condition of reverting back to the version without the logo. Jujutacular T · C 19:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- By the way... who decides what is 'official'? Handful of images that I doubt anyone from Wikimedia has anything to do with: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Jujutacular T · C 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I want them all deleted frankly. Heck, I think I actually tried to get the Commons logo deleted a while back... -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, but only version without logo. Even this small part of the logo is unnecessary and concerning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep- I didn't even see the logo until I looked closer.Bllasae (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete versions with Wikimedia logo per nom (unless you have evidence this is an authorized derivative work?), revert and Keep version without logo per Prosfilaes -en:User:Geoffrey
Kept. Disputed content removed. |EPO| da: 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
per COM:PEOPLE this image is of an identifiable person in a private place with no evidence of model consent. The image has since been made private on Flikr (perhaps the model did not consent to public viewing??). Someone could try contacting the author for evidence if they really think this photo is worth it. 99of9 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The pic is too dark to be of any use + per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PEOPLE. Jujutacular T · C 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that Guttenberg is the author of this photo made for the website of the Bundestag. I think there's a professional photographer who does that and who isn't named here, so it's a copyright violation. Also in the permission there isn't mentioned who is the real author of the photo. --Geitost (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's also the case for all the other images of members of the Bundestag that has been uploaded by User:Cducsu. --Geitost (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And for many, many other pics in Category:Members of the German Bundestag. If it is stated clearly in the permission that the person who grants the perm is owning all rights then it is okay. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
To expand on Saibo's comment: The agreement which is linked to in the "Permission" section clearly states: "Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild, dass ich der Fotograf/Zeichner bin bzw. mir von diesem schriftlich das uneingeschränkte ausschließliche Nutzungsrecht übertragen wurde." (Translation: "I declare with respect to the image that I am the photographer/painter or that he/she has conferred the unlimited and exclusive legal right of use to me in writing."). Unless you have proof that Mr. von und zu Guttenberg is lying and does in fact not possess the right of use for this image, this deletion request should be closed. --Farbijan (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, assume good faith on uploader behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone with knowledge of heraldry needs to look at this. Image was blanked with the edit summary " no existe ningún escudo de armas de apellidos, sino de familias" which translates "There are no coats of arms of last names, only of families". I have no idea if this is a real coat of arms, whether it is in scope, whether the licensing was correct, etc. I'm not even sure which version of the page history to restore it to. -Nard the Bard 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The license on this image is more than definitely incorrect. Calvin 1998 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: What makes you think the license is incorrect?. That said the source given has a copyright page here - "http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/services/copyright-statement/" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Outside scope. -Nard the Bard 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment not very different from File:Bared Sandy in Washington.jpg which I planned to nominate for deletion, the other day, when I suddenly discovered that it was used. So perhaps File:Male_Torso.JPG can be used too. Teofilo (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
* Keep
Neutral It's not out of scope. One can argue that it is a bad crop and that the educational value is not very high. But somehow I have the feeling that you are just trying to make a point. Sorry about this!! Amada44 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I was going through a list of images Shakespearefan00 had marked as no license that had been actually been vandalized to remove the licenses. I wasn't sure this one was in scope. -Nard the Bard 22:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I just looked at the image again an I noticed some white lines around the nippels moving down. Could those be scars? Maybe was the body a woman? The pubic hair seems non male too... Amada44 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What sense does this pic have? Right, none, out of scope and bad anyway. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - uploader blanked page previously, possibly requesting deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just a male torso, I cannot see nothing bad. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - low-quality photo, better quality images illustrating the topic already exist on Commons. Wikignome0530 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no reason for deletion. If the author wants it deleted, he can nominate it. Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - you uploaded it, and stated you were the author... -mattbuck (Talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I for once am willing to intertain the notion that the person in question doesn't speak english very well, and actually means that it's the person depicted who wants the image deleted and not the author. But i'm a bit split here, i don't see the image as something identifiable, but i wish to know more info so that we don't accidentally hurt somebody. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - last DR was closed as Kept, no reason for deletion. If the author wants it deleted, he can nominate it. The author has asked us to delete it, so it shall be done. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This does not qualify for speedy deletion, since it consists of simple geometric shapes and does not meet the threshold of originality. If the person requesting the speedy deletion objects, then it should be a regular deletion, so I listed it here. Taric25 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as nom. Taric25 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep like Taric25 states, it isn't original enough and would be put to good use if kept. QwerpQwertus (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The design at the beginning is unique and not a simple geometric figure. The file was inappropriately transferred from en.wikipeida where it was always tagged as fair use (see File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg and [3]). -FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily, do not change licensing tag on Wikipedia to support your own argument. This image is free, and it is not fair use. There is no assertion of the image being non-free, and the rationale is not a fair use rationale. In fact, there is no fair use template on the page at all. In addition, the rationale is out of courtesy, and the words “non-free” and “fair use” do not appear anywhere on the page. Taric25 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I linked the file's history on en.wikipedia for a reason. See the very first revision at [4]. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily, your actions are growing more and more specious. You provide the link to the image's history on en.wikipedia? Fine, I’m going to discuss each edit now and expose you for what you are. When the QwerpQwertus uploaded the image to en.wikipedia, it had both the both fair use and PD tags and gave a fair-use rationale. Since QwerpQwertus tagged the image with a Fair-use tag but didn't have it in a main space yet, Melesse tagged the image for deletion, so I fixed the licensing, because this should not be categorized as non-free and marked that I moved it to commons. You decline, revert my edit and mark the image for speedy deletion for no fair use rationale. Well, that's odd, because when you reverted my edit, you conspicuously did not restore the original fair-use rationale QwerpQwertus wrote in the first place. I find this most disturbing, since you obstructed process by willfully disregarding it in order to propagate you own agenda to delete the image, and do not even bother to say that you didn't know that QwerpQwertus wrote the fair use rationale before I moved it to Commons, because you dug your own grave when you just wrote above “it was always tagged as fair use”. I then restored the PD tag and added a free-use rationale. Notice, I did not use any fair-use template to write the rationale, and it is not a fair-use rationale. The rationale I wrote does not mention the words non-free or fair use anywhere, and the only link in the rationale I wrote links to en.wikipedia's logo policy, which explicitly discusses use of free logos, which this logo is: free. You revert me a second time, and then you write here with a link to the image on en.wikipedia as "proof" the image is fair use. I restore the free license, and I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. You revert me a third time and accuse me of “disruptive editing” and “The file is non-free and you know it.”, after I had already asserted this is a simple geometric shape and is free. Do not revert the page again, or I will not hesitate to report you for violating 3RR. Taric25 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. I've reported you to WP:ANI. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have replied to it. Taric25 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. I've reported you to WP:ANI. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily, your actions are growing more and more specious. You provide the link to the image's history on en.wikipedia? Fine, I’m going to discuss each edit now and expose you for what you are. When the QwerpQwertus uploaded the image to en.wikipedia, it had both the both fair use and PD tags and gave a fair-use rationale. Since QwerpQwertus tagged the image with a Fair-use tag but didn't have it in a main space yet, Melesse tagged the image for deletion, so I fixed the licensing, because this should not be categorized as non-free and marked that I moved it to commons. You decline, revert my edit and mark the image for speedy deletion for no fair use rationale. Well, that's odd, because when you reverted my edit, you conspicuously did not restore the original fair-use rationale QwerpQwertus wrote in the first place. I find this most disturbing, since you obstructed process by willfully disregarding it in order to propagate you own agenda to delete the image, and do not even bother to say that you didn't know that QwerpQwertus wrote the fair use rationale before I moved it to Commons, because you dug your own grave when you just wrote above “it was always tagged as fair use”. I then restored the PD tag and added a free-use rationale. Notice, I did not use any fair-use template to write the rationale, and it is not a fair-use rationale. The rationale I wrote does not mention the words non-free or fair use anywhere, and the only link in the rationale I wrote links to en.wikipedia's logo policy, which explicitly discusses use of free logos, which this logo is: free. You revert me a second time, and then you write here with a link to the image on en.wikipedia as "proof" the image is fair use. I restore the free license, and I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. You revert me a third time and accuse me of “disruptive editing” and “The file is non-free and you know it.”, after I had already asserted this is a simple geometric shape and is free. Do not revert the page again, or I will not hesitate to report you for violating 3RR. Taric25 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I linked the file's history on en.wikipedia for a reason. See the very first revision at [4]. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fastily, do not change licensing tag on Wikipedia to support your own argument. This image is free, and it is not fair use. There is no assertion of the image being non-free, and the rationale is not a fair use rationale. In fact, there is no fair use template on the page at all. In addition, the rationale is out of courtesy, and the words “non-free” and “fair use” do not appear anywhere on the page. Taric25 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the image clearly passes a threshold of originality. --UserB (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Although I do not agree with your vote, I would like to thank you for your assistance with deleting the duplicate copy of the image on Wikipedia and resolving the ANI. Taric25 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Question Could someone please explain how this image is sufficiently different than File:IBM logo.svg to pass the threshold of originality? To me the design at the left just looks like an inverse of "TEL" done in the same style. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Info This image is not sufficiently different than the IBM logo to pass the threshold of originality. Thank you for the great example, VernoWhitney! 
Taric25 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Count me as Keep unless someone can point out some differences. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Count me as
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tokyo_Electron_Logo.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tokyo_Electron_Logo.jpg&oldid=367722788){kind=link}
Kept, does not pass the Threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
first i uploaded an unprotected, much too large file, then i forgot to correctly name and tag the second file, so please delete the first two files Schoci (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I will revert, but also that version is marred by an ugly bookmark. Not in use, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
the 4 large files i uploaded in my wikipedia-beginning-days must be deleted!! they are my own work, i changed my mind on this, i want them protected from the www! please respect my wiskes on this. when i first worked with wikipedia, i didn't know all the things pertaining uploading. is there anybody who wants to abuse my trust in the correct procedure of wikipedia for the good of consumers AND info-provider!! Schoci (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a nice photo of a city we only have a few photos of (the original version without the "ugly" mark mentioned by Pieter Kuiper). I would lean to voting keep, but I'm not sure what you say the problem is and why you want to delete your photos or revoke your license. Can you please explain? Thanks. Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)