Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
false picture uploaded --GIGAtim93
Info fixing incomplete nomination by User:GIGAtim93. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, nevermind, deletion requested in good faith by uploader. Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Polarlys had tagged this as "no source". In an effort to try to keep it, I traced the origin. At https://www.pixelio.de/details.php?image_id=3998 one can download a version that is 571.6 KB (1180x1572px). It was uploaded on pixelio in April 2004, with a license that only allows editorial use (not for postcards). It is not sufficiently free for commons. But Jameslwoodward removed the copyviotag with comments on the talk page that are not valid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The source file on :en: wiki has been deleted. The deletion log entry reads 13:43, 7 October 2005 TheCoffee (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Zirkel.jpg" (IFD) . Now we should try to check the IFD archives to see what was said at that time. Teofilo (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I can't find an entry in the english wikipedia upload log for it. Teofilo (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment I removed the {{Speedy}} because this image has been here for five years and is in use in almost fifty places -- we don't need to disturb all those uses with a speedy. The comment I made on the talk page which Pieter objects to was (numbers added here for clarity in discussion):
- I removed {{copyvio|source=https://www.pixelio.de/details.php?image_id=3998}} because although they are probably the same photo, the image cited in the {{Copyvio}} is of significantly lower quality that this one.
- There are also seven tin-eye hits, all of which are of lower quality. Since this image has been on Commons since 2005, it would not surprise me if it was the source of all the images found on the web.
- Also, although the uploader has not been active since 2008, he or she uploaded hundreds of images with very few deletions.
- Finally, this is in use in around fifty places on around thirty projects. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As for (1) and (2), I did not notice that the Pixelio image predated this, so Pieter may be right. (3) is certainly true and valid -- we have an uploader with hundreds of uploads and very few problems -- it is reasonable to suppose that he or she actually took this picture. (4) is also true and valid -- at least let's replace it, which may take a day or two. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It is not reasonable to assume that User:Niki K made a picture with EXIF giving Bertram Fohrn as the author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Pieter. Some evidences too:
- The file wasnt uploaded by Niki K, but transfered from en.wp en:File:Zirkel.jpg - the log there isnt very informative [1]
- The filename is a german word, so checking the german article de:Zirkel shows, that a file Zirkel.jpg was first uploaded there and included in the article on May 31, 2004 [2]
- The upload predates the file logs, a file with the same name was uploaded later so the file log is very confusing [3] - however the text log is aviable in de:Special:WhatLinksHere/Datei:Zirkel.jpg: This file was deleted on de.wp with the reason 12:46, 4. Sep 2004 Breeze Bild:Zirkel.jpg wurde gelöscht (Löschfrist abgelaufen, pixelquelle.de) so the deletion deadline expired for files from the source http://pixelquelle.de - thats thats the source and thats pixelio.de.
- Summarizing: This is a bad upload and a 2 x bad transwiki.
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zirkel.jpg?action=history){kind=link}
![[3]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=Datei%3AZirkel.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
unused private text about a family - out of scope - all other files in the cat are heading for deletion Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - privy. --E8 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Jujutacular T · C 15:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - privy. --E8 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - privy. --E8 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - privy. --E8 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete privy. --E8 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete private, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete no source, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom -Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
empty category - "Rockand" is a typo) --Faolin42 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
empty category - "Winchedon" is a typo) --Faolin42 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Winchedon, Massachusetts : empty category - "Winchedon" is a typo)
description says: temp, to be deleted Amada44 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant to delete it a while back, but it slipped through. Feel free to speedy delete. --Dori - Talk 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ■ MMXX talk 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Demeaning Adsondownsydneystoop (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Not demeaning. Tm (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is in use and not demeaning. --TX55TALK 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep per COM:PORN. While it is unfortunate that this image is low-quality (fuzzy, low resolution), there are no other images depicting this type of bondage on the Commons (that I could find).--E8 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep we have and need pictures of many things, including bondage. As this file is legal, and the model consented, I see no reason to delete it, no matter how distasteful it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep No prudery - some people enjoy bondage, including women, they are not forcing this lifestyle on any one. This is orignially from a commercial site - the original owner will have obtained consent from that model.
demeaning Adsondownsydneystoop (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Not demeaning. Tm (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is in use and not demeaning. --TX55TALK 03:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep we have and need pictures of many things, including bondage. As this file is legal, and the model consented, I see no reason to delete it, no matter how distasteful it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Adequately licensed and useful as demonstrated by usage in more than ten Wiki articles. --Elekhh (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
demeaning Adsondownsydneystoop (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Ironicaly erotic. Tm (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's in use and not demeaning. --TX55TALK 04:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep we have and need pictures of many things, including bondage. As this file is legal, and the model consented, I see no reason to delete it, no matter how distasteful it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep No prudery - some people enjoy bondage, including women, they are not forcing this lifestyle on any one. I understand this picture to originate from a commercial site and the orginal owner will have obtained consent from that model.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.176.80 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Useful and properly licensed. --Elekhh (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
demeaning Adsondownsydneystoop (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Ironicaly erotic. Tm (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep it is not demeaning. --TX55TALK 03:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep we have and need pictures of many things, including bondage. As this file is legal, and the model consented, I see no reason to delete it, no matter how distasteful it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, to small to be useful Amada44 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unusable - the user is still active and he can make it better, if needed Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Paying for a picture does not transfer rights in the absence of a written agreement. OTRS required. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is better: 
--Sebletoulousain (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete uploader's request - both files are near-duplicates. Teofilo (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Very similar in style to [4]. Probable copyvio. No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Jujutacular T · C 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.glimmertwins.no/images/Hovedbilde_sh.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. ZooFari 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
i think the big fat red cross means it should be deleted Amada44 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I think so too. ZooFari 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Image seems like a blatant copyvio lifted from some website due to it's low resolution Tabercil (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Needs more specific source. ZooFari 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Website is "all rights reserved - copyright 2007", and there is just a single link to the image file. There isn't anything stating user is allowed to copy this image and to license it under this license. --Ednei amaral (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete needs OTRS. ZooFari 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, out of commons scope/blurry, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
watermark: private.com 78.55.16.210 05:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of both the photograph and the depicted works of which it is a derivative. The problem tag for the missing permission was blanked by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Info The uploader chose to blank the reference to this discussion instead of participating in it, so it would appear unlikely that a permission is forthcoming. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of both the photograph and the depicted work of which it is a derivative. The problem tag for the missing permission was blanked by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Info The uploader chose to blank the reference to this discussion instead of participating in it, so it would appear unlikely that a permission is forthcoming. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of both the photograph and the depicted works of which it is a derivative. The problem tag for the missing permission was blanked by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Singapore Art Museum is a regular venue for changing art displays, including this sculpture. As the sculpture was not permanently displayed, freedom of panorama does not apply. Therefore, the photograph is unfortunately an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Of course it is a sculpture but it consists only of a plain text and it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, so it is PD-ineligible. Electron <Talk?> 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I wasn't sure about this one, so I asked for advice. See the discussion at "Commons talk:Licensing#Sculptures in Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Lupo says, in the linked discussion 'In my book creating large 3D versions of these letters, arranging them in an arc, and placing them at various places on Earth is original enough to qualify as a "work"'. But if purpose doesn't matter (as per the EU directive Lupo quoted earlier), location can't really matter, since everything is located somewhere. Arrangement of objects on an arc holds nothing original, and these are large-scale versions of wooden letters you can buy anywhere in the world. Otherwise, I have to wonder why the finding of the palm trees and their arrangement and location is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There is no big difference between this sculpture and e.g 3-D advertising in plain letters on the tops of the buildings saying "SONY", "Coca Cola" or "PLAZA" or something else... Of course they can be protected by the trade mark law but they are PD-ineligible if we talking about copyrigts. Electron <Talk?> 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep While it may have taken hours or days to create this "work", it is a simple replica of text that can be generated through computers that would qualify as PD-ineligible. It might have taken effort to sculpt the letters, but there was no effort in creativity. ZooFari 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The mere fact that it is on public display in an important place suggests strongly that it is an original work. The artist has made many choices -- words, size, color, type face, thickness, kerning, but more important, the community has accepted it as a creative work. To apply the rules of simplicity to it would be like saying that a Mondriaan cannot be copyrighted because it is too simple or that the Warhol soup cans have no copyright of their own since they have no originality. If this succeeds as a keep, I may just start uploading Mondriaan and Warhol and cite this as precedent. And, while we don't give a lot of extra credit for experts here, let us note that the nominator, JackLee, is both a legal scholar and a Singaporean. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but not an intellectual property lawyer ... :) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. In my opinion it has nothing to do with a big art. At first (when I uploaded these photos) I didn't recognize it as a sculpure but rather as a small funny thing where tourists can take photos. Just for fun. I don't think it is a big art. Maybe in Singapore it is known but rather nowhere else... As I know Singapore is not a big country, as well (no offence ;). Electron <Talk?> 13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Jim tries to show that even simple text implies a lot of choices and decisions. That is right but up to now such text variations never were accepted to found an own copyright or reach the threshold of originality . Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay in Singapore is a regular venue for changing art displays, including this sculpture. As the sculpture was not permanently displayed, freedom of panorama does not apply. Therefore, the photograph is unfortunately an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Of course it is a sculpture but it consist only of a plain text and it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, so it is PD-ineligible. Electron <Talk?> 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I wasn't sure about this one, so I asked for advice. See the discussion at "Commons talk:Licensing#Sculptures in Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lupo says, in the linked discussion 'In my book creating large 3D versions of these letters, arranging them in an arc, and placing them at various places on Earth is original enough to qualify as a "work"'. But if purpose doesn't matter (as per the EU directive Lupo quoted earlier), location can't really matter, since everything is located somewhere. Arrangement of objects on an arc holds nothing original, and these are large-scale versions of wooden letters you can buy anywhere in the world. Otherwise, I have to wonder why the finding of the particular species of plant and their arrangement and location is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There is no big difference between this sculpture and e.g 3-D advertising in plain letters on the tops of the buildings saying "SONY", "Coca Cola" or "PLAZA" or something else... Of course they can be protected by the trade mark law but they are PD-ineligible if we talking about copyrights. Electron <Talk?> 06:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep While it may have taken hours or days to create this "work", it is a simple replica of text that can be generated through computers that would qualify as PD-ineligible. It might have taken effort to sculpt the letters, but there was no effort in creativity. ZooFari 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of us try to show that even simple text implies a lot of choices and decisions. That is right but up to now such text variations never were accepted to found an own copyright or reach the threshold of originality . Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay in Singapore is a regular venue for changing art displays, including this sculpture. As the sculpture was not permanently displayed, freedom of panorama does not apply. Therefore, the photograph is unfortunately an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no reason to think this isn't copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay in Singapore is a regular venue for changing art displays, including this sculpture. As the sculpture was not permanently displayed, freedom of panorama does not apply. Therefore, the photograph is unfortunately an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no reason to think this isn't copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment what is the "artwork" : the pink rectangular shapes and nothing more ? , I don't mind if the uploader wants to argue that it is too simple to be copyrighted. If the uploader thinks it is safer for him to delete, then we should delete on his request. Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- They aren't solid colored, though, and I think that's part of the point. Judging from the other picture, I think changes over time is part of the art, but there's enough here that I'm uncomfortable saying it's not eligible for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
it was not a target file(.ogg) Wellfare1 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Image comes from here (see indication of source: http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BMP3). The source cannot verify a GFDL or a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. The claimed copyright holder "Konstatin Kossatschow" cannot be verified as the copyright holder with this source. High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Old postcard showing an aerial view of the Place Napoléon in La Roche sur Yon, France. Immediate image source is [5]. No indication of year or author. Lupo 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- The floor pattern has changed on File:Place Napoléon.JPG dated 2007, and the 1854 Napoleon is there. So it is a [1854-2007] picture. But this does not help find out the copyright status, so Delete. Teofilo (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we take the claim by the immediate image source that it was taken from a plane at face value, it must have been taken after 1903. Lupo 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see any car in the streets. I miss the cars because car shapes could be a hint about the year. On the other hand, no car can mean "very old". But I can't see any horse either. This picture is really a dark enigma. Teofilo (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Could be during world war I ? or II ? they had eaten all the horses and melt all the cars into guns. Teofilo (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see any car in the streets. I miss the cars because car shapes could be a hint about the year. On the other hand, no car can mean "very old". But I can't see any horse either. This picture is really a dark enigma. Teofilo (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we take the claim by the immediate image source that it was taken from a plane at face value, it must have been taken after 1903. Lupo 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The uploader apparently mistook the source wiki's license for the image license, or something like that.[6][7]--141.84.69.20 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Erdenkind_und_Drachentod_Roman_Cover.jpg&diff=2383663&oldid=2382114){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Erdenkind_und_Drachentod_Roman_Cover.jpg&diff=next&oldid=2383663){kind=link}
also quality issues Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete it as per author request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.250.76 (talk • contribs)
- Comment If "author" is Flickr user then I wonder why license on http://www.flickr.com/photos/43749766@N00/131249387 is still http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en and since that user is "Asian Projects Co-ordinator at Creative Commons" she should know that a CC license can not be revoked. So what is the problem? --MGA73 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good portrait of Chiaki Hayashi, a notable person -- why should we want to delete it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Unclear source. Original uploader simply stated own work, but where did he get it? Did he scan it from the original - as Nyttend claims (with no apparent basis)? Or was it found on the internet somewhere? Or was it some more modern reproduction - or even a fictional production? --Wknight94 talk 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unclear source.--Bapti ✉ 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I suppose somebody scanned it from the original. I can see no hint that it is a fake. And the contents are not very controversial : just a man who says "please vote for me". Even if it were a fake, it would not make much harm. this recent newspaper article shows that a politician with this name was mayor of that city. It is old enough to be in the public domain, so there is no copyright worry. At the bottom of Wikipedia article fr:Edouard Parsy the "notes et references" section says "archives nationales". So perhaps he scanned them at the archives nationales or got them from the archives nationales websitee. have you checked the archives nationales website ? Teofilo (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand why File:Paul Parsy Avocat à la Cour d'Appel.jpg was deleted. Wasn't that file an old 19th century document too ? Teofilo (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)I mixed up the father (Edouard) and the son (Paul) so perhaps it was a 20th century document and safer to delete. Teofilo (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep With PD-Art works, I don't see the need to stress out over source. Could it be a fictional production? I guess it's possible, though I don't see how a claimed source--or even a real source--really protects us there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ... and crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
WTF?
What's the matter with you?
-- It's on my USER PAGE at Wikipedia, where I have over 1,000 edits.
-- It's a picture of ME
-- it's low-rez, grainy, and much less "racy" than MANY pictures in wikipedia (like this).
I think it's the TEXT that you don't like, but since you can't change THAT, you go after my photo.
You need to read Nietzsche. TechnoFaye (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you nuts? Neither it is on your user page (or any page), nor it has any educational value. Commons is not a private data storage for pictures of any kind, go to FlickR. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete very strange, the reaction is even more strange than the image. Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment strange and looks like "out of scope", but used in a talk on wiktionary ?! Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- yea, old stuff from 2006. IMO not worth keeping. Amada44 (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused perosnal image Amada44 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
strange unused logo or something - out of scope unless somebody can add the context Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
File was uploaded to illustrate a made up sport article on wikipedia. There article has since be deleted so there is no need for this file. It is uncatagorised and unused Theresa knott (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of COM:SCOPE sport or game not widely known. Seems to be related to this facebook page with a similar picture and en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:G-Ball (Sport). The deletion request was apparently uncomplete. I've added template:delete, and am about to notify uploader with subst:idw. Teofilo (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
nice photo but no description. could be be copyvio Amada44 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 05:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
very bad quality, no description thus useless Amada44 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- ahhh, sh...! I missed the the filename. anyhow, really bad quality and we have tonnes of sunsets. Amada44 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File name not very specific. ZooFari 05:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
no information to where this is. image title says: The leader be the best or do what mejor.JPG Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete An uploader with same name has only one edit on Spanish wiki diff. It is the same strange text. This uploader seems to have too little understanding of the purpose of Commons. It is difficult to say if he is reliable when he says it is own work, so we'd better delete. And Tineye has no match for this mountain. Teofilo (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 05:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Converted from speedy put on by uploader with this comment:
- "Please delete per request of author, image is orphaned and serves no purpose any more."
Since we don't delete good images that don't happen to be in use, I believe this is a Keep. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not a good image, it is rough, pixelated and cartoonish. It was only meant to be temporary until the original image could be edited and rotated, which I could not do for several months because my computer crashed and I lost my photoediting software, and had to purchase it anew. That thing was made in paint and converted to PNG. The original contemporar image is File:Bosnien och Hercegovina gammalt statsvapen (1800-talet.png. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The history of the original file convinces me that the uploader's explanation is true. ZooFari 05:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to keep this old photo, but Martin H. wants to delete it. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I dont want to delete it, I want a correct and sufficient source. --Martin H. (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- But your "no source" tag will lead to deletion. Although there is no copyright problem. Although it is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Think different: Files without source shouldnt go for upload on Commons in the first place. Deletion isnt the problem, its the upload and that the uploader have not done their's bit to provide all necessary information to have something uploaded here. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep According to es:María Francisca Palafox Portocarrero y KirkPatrick, the lady in the picture died 1860, so this can be tagged pd-art as it is very unlikely that the painter of the image was still alive in 1940. Or are you questioning that the description is correct? --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Think different: Files without source shouldnt go for upload on Commons in the first place. Deletion isnt the problem, its the upload and that the uploader have not done their's bit to provide all necessary information to have something uploaded here. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Author is Federico Madrazo y Kunz (1815 – 1894) and thus PD-art. ZooFari 04:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This photograph was not published first in the United States but in Austria (see its source), hence {{PD-US}} does not apply. This photograph is still copyrighted in Austria and other European countries as the photographer Arthur Benda died in 1969. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment note that it's in use on en.WP, where this copyright license is accepted. If you're going to delete it, please transwiki it first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not in the public domain in its source country. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No valid source given. The file seems to have been copied (via en.wikipedia) from de:Datei:Grand slam.jpg, which was apparently deleted as a copyvio (see log; I'm not an admin on de.wikipedia, so I can't dig further there). That said, the local copy does have a {{PD-UKGov}} license that might well be correct, although without a source it's hard to say. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, assume good faith on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No source for the base map and the information written on the image itself - Tereshchenko R. W.(?) - isnt explainable with the given author information too. Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This does not infringe on the map, which is likely to be free anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source for the map. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia - possibly copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia - possibly copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep good enough --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia - possibly copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep good enough --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page should be deleted as wikipedia is NOT allowed (as it has no licence) to publish any of Stoyanov's work [8].
[edit]
This image illustrates a theory which has received no acceptance by the scientific community and was uploaded by a user now blocked on en:Wikipedia.
It was used in en:Anti Aging Telomere T-loop deletion factor which was speedily deleted.
See:
- en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-loop deletion factor
- en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Vladimir Stoyanov
- en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalOfAntiAging/Archive
- en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalOfAntiAging
It was later uploaded here on flickr where it is marked "© All rights reserved". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Old and unused signs
[edit]File:Estacionl1.pngFile:Estacionl1fin.pngFile:Estacionl1inicio.pngFile:Estacionl2.pngFile:Estacionl3.png- File:Estacionl4.png
- File:Estacionl4esquina.png
- File:Estacionl4esquina2.png
- File:Estacionl4linea.png
- File:Estacionl4lineah.png
- File:Estacionl4lineaho.png
- File:Estacionlmc.png
File:Estacionlmcbw.png
All theses files are old and unused and will most likley never be used again. --Amada44 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep they are older versions, part of the history of the newer versions, and mentioned as source of File:Estacionl1.svg for example. Must be kept as an archive even if unused. Teofilo (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Info anybody voting keep may gladly add categories to all of these images. maybe: Category:Kept for archiv purposes would be a good one. Amada44 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even more important would be to insert the SVG files like File:Estacionl1.svg into a non-hidden category. Teofilo (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete: these are in category:Vector version available. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have crossed out the Vector version available ones. All of the images are from Category:Media needing categories as of 23 October 2008. The remaining images are partly lacking description and have never been categorized, and who knows if they have ever been used. They would need a category like the one I have mentioned above. Amada44 talk to me 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, moved to Category:Originals. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)