Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-gray_tone_red_and_yellow_card_(Soccer).jpg){kind=link}
bad name of image, very bad quality. speedy by User:Pleple2000, June 21, 2010. Changed to DR by Jameslwoodward
Keep This is certainly not a speedy and I see no reason to delete it. I don't read the language of the file name, so I can not comment on that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Replaced with identical File:Central Asian Shepherd Dog Katowice 2005, better name.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Nyköping (K34) instead which is the correct name. There are several HMS Nyköping. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Helsingborg (K32) instead which is the correct name. There are several HMS Helsingborg. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Härnösand (K33) instead which is the correct namn. There are several HMS Härnösand. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Emty category, and has been a long time. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
File is damaged. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Corrupt or empty file: Damaged file
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No, de trabajo derivado nada, yo no he plagiado nada. Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete ¿Qué significa entonces el texto que se puede leer en la parte inferior derecha de la imagen? (C) Edigal Ediciones, todos los derechos reservados. Saludos, Alpertron (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Pero vamos a ver, ¿hablamos de trabajo derivado o de infracción de derechos de copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luispihormiguero (talk • contribs) Alpertron (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
- Comment ¿El diseño de esa tabla periódica es tuyo o no? ¿Cuál es tu relación con Edigal Ediciones, que es el dueño del copyright? --Alpertron (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is not a derivative work. 80.58.205.52 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of a copyrighted publication. Lobo
(howl?) 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete License? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted copyvio as recognized by uploader in the Café. --Alpertron (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Question We could have a better discussion here if we knew what this was supposed to be derivative of? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Where was the original map, where the flags have been added, taken from? Belgrano (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources are documented (and turn out to be free); "imágenes de Google" is not sufficient source information for Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I do not care if you delete the file, I just say that flags are PD. Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Sanbec as "Derivative of non-free content". Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This image was in South Africa, so Freedom of Panorama isn't okay in this situation. It's not ok according to Commons:FOP Bsadowski1 03:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded File:Antoinette Pieterson.jpg as a crop from this file that doesn't have FOP problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This image has to go as there is no Freedom of Panorama for the poster in South Africa but Prosfilaes' crop solution fully solves the problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, lacking description. whatever it is, it would be very easy to create again if it should be needed. (In fact, I will do an svg version if it should be useful). Amada44 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unused and as per Amanda44 --Neozoon (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unusable something - looks astronomical, unusable without description Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Vandalism. Luispihormiguero (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see how this picture is useful. It seems like someone decided to upload a personal picture without realizing what the use of this site is. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep No, ese trabajo es 100% mío, no me he inspirado ni fijado en ningún otro usuario para subir esas imágenes, de las cuáles soy yo el autor. Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see enough creative work on the clock to be more than just a wall clock. Lobo (howl?) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Mere utilitarian object without any creative design Belgrano (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is only a photo of a clock, not a derivative work.80.58.205.52 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The clock is not a creative work, so the photo isnt derivative of someone else creative input. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. without obvious educational use Ferbr1 (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Joder, cualquiera diría que me tienes manía o algo, de verdad.
- "Trabajo derivado" No, la imagen es totalmente mía.
- "Sin obvio uso educacional" Sin palabras, de verdad. O sea, que si algo no se va a usar en la educación, ¿no puede ser subido a commons? Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep I don't see the derivative work here, it's just a picture of an orange alarm clock. Regarding the educational use, it illustrates a traditional alarm clock. Lobo 
(howl?) 14:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's a mere utilitarian object without creative design added Belgrano (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is only a photo of a clock, not a derivative work.80.58.205.52 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image (work of art?) Santosga (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Not useful for the project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused and out of scope; corresponding article was deleted in en wikipedia here en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klokshopkids.com for no notability and self-promotion Santosga (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Kyro (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio - downloaded from website of the SMRT Corporation (uploader indicated source as "smrt"). Image is not used in any article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copywrited work. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - advertisement for someone / something ??!! - whatever: out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of File:British Ceylon flag.png --Antemister (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Redirected to File:British Ceylon flag.png. ZooFari 01:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
strange unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Private image that is not useful. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The only image by an absent uploader that is unused on wikipedia. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused out of scope image. --ZooFari 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment thi right hand side one seems to be Indian TV actress Pooja Gaur --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. I'll crop the other person, but are you sure it's the one in the right? I searched other images on the web and find them both alike. ZooFari 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- When you do, keep the girl on the left. She is actress Avantica Hundal who also stars in the Mann_Kee_Awaaz_Pratigya Indian soap opera along with Pooja Gor. moriori (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have updated the description and categories. Withdraw this deletion request. ZooFari 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, advertising of a website for selling music online [www.newmelodies.com] Santosga (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per image by a long absent uploader that may be involved in spam. It is not used anywhere on wikipedia too. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Look like it came from facebook. Unfree imho - Zil (d) 06:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"facebook copyright 2010" Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Given source is not explaining why it is supposed to be PD and the quality is too low to read the image captions. Masur (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Spiegel"-magazine is not a free source Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/network_map.asp. Image is not used in any article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copywrited work. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/network_map.asp. Image is not used in any article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copywrited work. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/network_map.asp. Image is not used in any article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copywrited work. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/network_map.asp. Image is not used in any article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copywrited work. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (the waiting has an end... ) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused drawing - advertisement? - unusable without a clear description or context - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
unused strange advertisement for a music project - not notable , out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As polish act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Polish_Copyright_Law) says: Chapter 3. The Content of Copyright, art 33. "It shall be permitted to disseminate: the works permanently exhibited on commonly accessible public roads, streets, squares or gardens, although not for the same use". However here the sculpture is installed inside the building, therefore another art shpuld apply, which says: "the works exhibited in commonly accessible public collections such as museums, galleries, and exhibition halls, though only in catalogues and printed publications for promotion of such works and also in the press and television current event reports, however, within the limits justified by information purposes", which is not PD neither "free". Therefore it should be deleted. Masur (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC) ps. it's the same case as for deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salvador.Dali-Profile.of.Time.JPG Masur (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Pls hv a look on file:Collegium Iuridicum Kraków 05.JPG - it's the same rule to apply...Pa3Widzi (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete FOP doesn't apply. Herr Kriss (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ditto. Pa3Widzi (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Szczepan talk 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
After many many times of looking at this picture uncategorised, sitting in cat Horses, I still can't figure out a reasonable use for this. Only used in a userpage gallery. --Pitke (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
unused, blue (sort of) rectangle Amada44 (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: not useful for the project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image was obviously used for the 2009 fundraising campaign. See the other contributions of the uploader and Template:Fundraising_2009_button. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a file which was deleted for not being freely licensed pne (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Specifically: it says that it was cropped from "Makka_sa.jpg", which was deleted in March of 2009, for inability to verify the cc-by-sa license it was supposedly under: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Makka_sa.jpg
So if the source license is (probably) un-free, this derivative work is probably similarly un-free. -- pne (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I created the derivative in good faith. However, if the source license cannot be verified I'm happy for it to be removed. Papa November (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Initially tagged with no source (source is present), but out of scope. --ZooFari 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No indication/evidence that the uploader (Popoypalits (talk · contribs)) is the same as the person on the image watermark (Darwim dartate). Bluemask (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Kyro (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comments: I think this should have been tagged with {{npd}} and the uploader informed? Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
-gray_tone_red_and_yellow_card_(Soccer).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-gray_tone_red_and_yellow_card_(Soccer).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unusable for any educational purpose: Faked. The lower half is NOT a grayscale depiction. If you convert this picture to grayscale, you can clearly see that the red and yellow are still looking (very) different. --212.201.76.165 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-gray_tone_red_and_yellow_card_(Soccer).jpg){kind=link}
- Back story: This image wants to display a etymology of the german word "Arschkarte" which is considered an urban legend and is backed by no linguistic evidence whatsoever. --18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
-gray_tone_red_and_yellow_card_(Soccer).jpg){kind=link}
It is missing information. 60% of the uploaded images by this user have been deleted. Clausule (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Who owns the rights to this important image? It is just posted on a web site. No one says if it is USHMM or any other source and USHMM photos are not accepted here today anyway. This needs OTRS permission and there is none. It is a copy vio in my view. Leoboudv (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Likely, the photo is of Bulgarian or German origin (copyright-wise). Both countries have 70-year terms that start from first publication (works proven to be by anonymous) or pma. This photo is still under copyright. Jappalang (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Image likely taken at the August 1943 meeting in Rastenburg[1]. Even if the photographer died on the spot, it would be protected until end of 2013. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Use Category:HMS Visby (K31) instead which is the correct name. There are several HMS Visby. --Mr Bullitt (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Changed to {{Category redirect}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The image is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, contrary to the uploader's assertion. It should be transferred back to Wikipedia and used under a fair-use licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Not really even close. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a simple logo sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Pornographic Material 69.255.161.162 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete sole porn, no value, and - sadly ;) - bad quality! --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, bad quality video depicting intercourse between (presumably: 18 U.S.C. § 2257) adults with no clear educational value. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Video is a very powerful explanatory tool, and if you want to show a process, something that takes time, there's no tool like video. This is not the ideal video to show the sexual act to our users, but as far as I know, it's the one and only video we have showing it. It is, as far as I can tell, a fairly realistic portrayal of the whole sex act between a pair of fairly normal humans. We need a video that shows sex (preferably non-pornographic and non-clincal), and this is the one we have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As Prosfilaes --Phyrexian (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. --Gaeser (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete pure porn --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not in pornography. It is an image of sexuality that couple in country all over the world where also is doing. If this is called pornography, we will become children in the porn star. --Letsshareit (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Question Are you thinking we are idiots? Just curious...--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Such a thing does not think. It is misunderstanding if you are judged so from my comment.--Letsshareit (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that uploader is the author. There is no evidence that both participants intended to share this video on Commons. And all the sound files that were uploaded now by this account (the ones with moans from every continent), suggest that the claim of "own work" may be inaccurate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is difficult for it to prove it. With the common photographs, I do not mind such a thing? Most files uploaded to here will not be investigated. Can you prove that the file made by itself is a really perfect original thing?--Letsshareit (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Pieter Kuiper. --Dferg (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio: author name different Elekhh (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Per nom above. Rehman(+) 03:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 1 days
It would be good to keep the image as the article on en:WP (en:James_Howe) is in need of a pic. Problematic is the missing exif data, small size and also that it is the contributors sole contribution (which all lead to the conclusion that it is quite likely a copyvio). Other opinions? Amada44 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- nothing found on the net per TinEye or Google. Difficult to decide. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Original author is missing, missing legal information --Eva K. is evil 09:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be from here but perhaps old enough. Does somebody remember the disc on de-wikipedia? --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Auf de:Diskussion:Bunte_Kuh wurde angemerkt, dass die Datei sehr phantasievoll ist aber nicht darstellt was sie angibt darzustellen. Urheberrechtlich habe ich keine Diskussion gefunden, der original Upload war Datei:Bunte Kuh.jpg. Die Originalquelle ist einen klick nach der von Mbdortmund genannten: http://www.desy.de/susy02/buntekuh.html. Delete Neben den Problemen mit der Richtigkeit der Darstellung gibt es vor allem dass rechtliche Problem dass ein Gemälde ohne Maler einfach sehr unwahrscheinlich ist. --Martin H. (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Auf de:Diskussion:Bunte_Kuh wurde angemerkt, dass die Datei sehr phantasievoll ist aber nicht darstellt was sie angibt darzustellen. Urheberrechtlich habe ich keine Diskussion gefunden, der original Upload war Datei:Bunte Kuh.jpg. Die Originalquelle ist einen klick nach der von Mbdortmund genannten: http://www.desy.de/susy02/buntekuh.html.
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, advertising of a website for selling music online [www.newmelodies.com] --Santosga (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If there are no new arguments in the next days I will delete all contributions of this user and the userpage as spam --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Inappropriate, unsourced and not used anywhereLeonardo (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate, unsourced and not used anywhere Leonardo (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: doesn't look like it will be useful for the project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Image is of low quality and not likely to be useful for any purpose. Species of two lichen genera are present in this photo–Teloschistes and Usnea; neither can be identified to species due to the poor image quality and better images of both genera exist on Wikimedia Imedeiros (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 01:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope: image of a non-notable person. No categories, no meaningful description, not in use. Source tags this a copyvio. --Pitke (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Either a copyvio or an unused personal photo. Jujutacular T · C 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader. Very low resolution too which hints at a possible copy vio though I can't say for sure. But notability is not established. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New York City Subway bullets
[edit]- File:NYCS-bull-trans-A.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-B.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-C.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-D.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-E.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-F.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-G.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-J.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-L.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-M.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-M-orange.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-N.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-Q.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-R.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-S.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-T.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-V.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-W.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-Z.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-1.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-2.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-3.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-4.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-5.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-6.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-6d.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-7.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-7d.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-9.svg
The New York MTA claims that it owns the licenses to its logos and symbols, of which the subway bullets are a part of. Regardless of whether they are correct or not, the MTA has been vigorously defending their intellectual property,[2][3] and to see the bullets on non-New York City Subway pages is alarming.[4][5] I am nominating the bullets that are currently in use, have been used in the past 10 years (the 9) or about to or proposed to be used (the orange M and the T). (There are other variations in Category:New York City Subway bullets that I am not nominating at this time.) The images should be fine under fair use. --TLK in 3 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I would say that they can all be keept becaue of simple design. See also here. Amada44 (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As per above, far to simple for copyright.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Quite clearly too simple for copyright eligibility. MTA's claims of copyright are frankly... sad. Jujutacular T · C 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep They're letters or numbers in the middle of a simple geometric shape. No copyrightable claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to me that that {{PD-ineligible}} would apply. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment would it help to make our case and increase their usefulness by moving them to generic names, like Bullet_W_Yellow_circle.svg? On the other hand, moving them would be non-trivial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)- Keep. The bullets are so simple that they are public domain. Putting a letter or number in a circle or diamond is not enough to declare authorship. —Imdanumber1 ( local | logs | global ) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per so many reasons already listed, especially the one given by Prosfilaes. What's next? Is P. C. Richard & Son going to sue the Famous Tate appliance & bedding chain in the Tampa Bay area because they both use the same typeface? ----69.117.255.50 21:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got logged off my PC. I reiterate; KEEP.----DanTD (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment After absorbing everything that was said here, I agree the combination of shape, color and text is simple enough to not allow a claim of copyright, one of the simplest combos there is. I would suggest the tags be changed from the current {{PD-text}} to {{PD-ineligible}} because the color is also an important element. I also suggest adding the tag {{Trademarked}}, if the MTA's trademark claim is valid. (Full disclosure: I am planning to write a mobile app regarding NYC public transportation
and I will ask the MTA for the rights to use its bullets, among other images.At one point I plan to integrate Wikipedia text into the app, and in doing so, I want to be sure that Wikipedia will have no liability from using the bullet images. For example, if I incorporate the article en:34th Street – Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) into the mobile app, I want Wikipedia to be free of trademarking liabilities due to the bullets in the infobox. Plus, I am also a significant editor of the infobox!) This should be enough to close the debate and keep the images, but the tags should be edited. --TLK in 3 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)- I still support closure as directed above. (I would do it myself as a non-admin but I'm busy at the moment.) I'm just adding a comment that I will not seek to use the MTA's intellectual property because the rights are too expensive. But I strongly suggest adding the trademark tag as it's appropriate here. TLK in 3 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file can be useful in a userbox. Please, do not delete it. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can't you create and use another similar file that will not infringe on the MTA's trademark? Like, the letter "G" in a red circle for the gaming infobox above (if that in itself is not trademarked)? TLK in 3 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- No use in a Gaming Userbox could possibly infringe on the MTA's trademark. Trademarks are limited by field. The MTA does have a trademark (76534147) on the G in white on a green circle (check out http://www.uspto.gov/index.jsp for details) and presumably others, but that's only in their field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can't you create and use another similar file that will not infringe on the MTA's trademark? Like, the letter "G" in a red circle for the gaming infobox above (if that in itself is not trademarked)? TLK in 3 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-geometry}} Kyro (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. TLK (or anyone) is welcome to improve the tags on the images. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Guatemala pictures
[edit]- File:Tikal - Acropole.jpg
- File:Tikal - vue panoramique du Temple IV.jpg
- File:Volcans au loin.jpg
- File:Tikal - haut de l'Acropole Nord.jpg
- File:Tikal - Acropole Nord.jpg
- File:Atitlan de jour.jpg
- File:Guatemala Ciudad cemetery.jpg
- File:Guatemala Ciudad cemetery - egyptian tumb.jpg
- File:San José Pinula.jpg
- File:Guatemala Ciudad.jpg
I uploaded these pictures approximately ten years after they were taken, but recent discussions off-wiki showed that I may not be the photographer (we were a group and had only one shared camera). I am not in touch anymore with the other possible photographer, so I'd rather have these images removed than credited to me. They are all unused, except for the last two ones. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please look for a possible replacement for the last two pictures? I don't know anything about the location. Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is a recent version of this file loaded the 04th of June on Commons. --Sixas (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Closed by me, but the file was already a red-link. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2-D sketch of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted, given the original uploader's track record on en.wikipedia. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Par principe de précaution. --GaAs11671 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Renominating because it is a derivative of this photo. See User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 4#Deletion of File:Sirimavo Bandaranaike.jpg for the undeletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Painting of a copyrighted picture => unfree. Kyro (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Image available elsewhere online- such as at: https://www.newsfirst.lk/2016/10/today-marks-16th-death-anniversary-sirimavo-bandaranaike/151368/ - ක - (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Category:HMS Uppland
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
BMP files replaced by PNG
[edit]- File:Savannah Shamrocks RFC.gif
- File:Nepal Coat of Arms.gif
- File:Maurussia.gif
- File:Mauritanihia.gif
- File:Lyndon B. Johnson - portrait.gif
- File:Fabricacion.gif
- File:Coast sliman.gif
- File:Single YFP molecule superresolution microscopy.tif
- File:ENicon sTRK.svg
- File:Copy of Esempio di riarrangiamento.svg
- File:Ukranian Dorian.pdf
- File:Magein Avot.pdf
- File:Ahavah Rabbah.pdf
- File:Adonai Malach.pdf
- File:Flag of Puerto Barrios, Izabal.bmp (and redirect File:Izabal Flag.jpg)
These files are all BMP images, even though their filename may suggest some other type. They have all been superseded by identical images in the PNG format. As BMP is not a permitted file format on Commons, and as (all but one of) the file names are in any case misleading, I propose that all these images should be deleted (and maybe replaced by redirects). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously Delete--DieBuche (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted and replaced by appropriate redirects. ZooFari 04:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)