Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Sandbox
Cancelliamola, tanto non mi serve più... --Dr Claudio radio signal 07:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ShakataGaNai: Out of project scope
picture is nit correct Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, file is not from a free content source. Martin H. (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
picture is not correct Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation, file is not from a free content source. Martin H. (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Notable person: w:Neil Harbisson. Trycatch (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep Sorry, don't know how I missed it. Cheers --Santosga (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I've added the image to en:Neil Harbisson. --Yuval Y § Chat § 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Yuval Y § Chat § 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is weird. Appears to be a derivative work of an OK magazine cover featuring Marisa Miller, but with a different model: http://www.okmagazine.com/2009/11/marisa-miller-i-was-always-shy-about-my-body/048_featur_mil_035/ Ytoyoda (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete - and the endless file description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. For advertising purposes only. Description is nothing but promotional. Out of scope as advertising. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Weel yes, this image comes from http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/5039215737/ and it was posted by an US Army subdivision. And it is not published under a free license there. Just because it was uploaded by some US Army employee does not qualify this image to a work of a US Army employee. There is obviously no proof that this file was made/taken (whatsoever) by a US Army member. That's pure speculation. Such images are oftenly purchased by the manufacturer as well, which would mean that this file cannot be published under a PD-Army licence. All in all: there is no proof for PD-Army. NOTE: This argumentation applies to all of these images USER:Tm has recently uploaded. --80.187.103.148 07:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I´m the uploader. First off, just because this image is marked all rights reserved, doesnt mean that is not a official US Army image, just see the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command flickr photostream with images marked as "All Rights Reserved" and with a caption "U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Angelica Golindano)(RELEASED)". Also if theres still any doubt, see the US Army press release about this rifle where there is one this images put to deletion, and where its stated "Photo credit PEO Soldier". Tm (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- And where is the proof that this image (File:XM2010_(Right_back_view).jpg) is the work of a US Army employee? This must be given so that it is PD-USGov-Army!!! --80.187.103.61 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
-
Taken in 21 of September at 14h23min with a Canon EOS-1D Mark III -
Taken in 21 of September at 14h25min with a Canon EOS-1D Mark III -
Taken in 21 of September at 14h26min with a Canon EOS-1D Mark III; "Photo credit PEO Soldier" -
Taken in 21 of September at 14h25min with a Canon EOS-1D Mark III
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
There is already clearly proven that File:XM2010 (Right front view).jpg is a US Army image. All other 3 are taken with the same camera and with a 3 minutes diference. Hoping that is this enough proof of this being a PD-USGov-Army, unless there is proof(s) on the contrary. Tm (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I agree. I too obsessively monitor PEO Soldier's photostream and have never found an image there not taken by the army. 204.184.92.1 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of a commercial company, too complex to be a {{PD-textlogo}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Copyvio}}. The uploader persistently lies about being the copyright holder of corporate logotypes in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uploader isn't en:Thelonious Monk. sугсго 09:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Was verbietet Paragraph 53 Absatz 4 des deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetzes? --84.61.131.141 10:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thelonius Monk war kein Deutscher. Die WMF ist kein deutscher Verein. Die Commons werden nicht in Deutschland gehostet. Was interessiert in diesem Fall das UrhG? Und die kommerzielle Vervielfältigung - die die GFDL ja gerade fördert - ist vom § 53 IV UrhG eh nicht umfasst. sугсго 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ich meinte den Paragraph 53 Absatz 4 des deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetzes. --84.61.131.141 12:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Und? Die kommerzielle Drittverwertung ist von § 53 UrhG nicht umfasst. sугсго 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ist es in Deutschland erlaubt, urheberrechtlich geschützte Musiknoten zu fotokopieren? --84.61.131.141 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Es kommt auf den Zweck an. Lies doch § 53 UrhG noch mal ganz und ausführlich. sугсго 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If this passport was issued in 1970 then it does not meet any of the "public domain" conditions set out in the license. TreasuryTag (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, wrong license. However, I'd Keep this, because it's obviously an official work. Also, the coat of arms on the passport is probably old enough to be PD anyway, the rest is ineligible. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Crown copyright from 1970 would not have expired yet, but the components are old or ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Low quality picture of the same illustration as in File:AnthonyRoll-6 Jesus of Lübeck.jpg with no added value or detail. Peter Isotalo 10:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, there is room for improvement also with the new version File:AnthonyRoll-6 Jesus of Lübeck.jpg, but already at the moment it is better than this. Delete Jesus-of-Lubeck.jpg as superseded. --Martin H. (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be the cover of a published musical album; no evidence that the uploader is the creator of this image or otherwise entitled to release it into the public domain Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- delete, seems to be EP-cover--Motopark (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not a NASA image, this is an image created by Space X 92.131.35.55 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - The image credit is clearly given as "Courtesy: NASA" at the source page http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/permalink/?ndmViewId=multimedia_detail&newsId=20080909006613&newsLang=en&contentGroupId=1678328 --GDK (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Image caption in source clearly states Courtesy NASA". Tm (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedic use impossible: Out of scope. Due to the fact that this image is terribly unsharp it cannot be used in any article. I request to delete this file because of this awful quality. 80.187.103.61 23:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very blurred indeed.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
as stated by the uploader, this photo is made by Volvo, and is copyrighted material Sylenius (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The photograhic work, not the car, is the copyrighted material. Delete, uploader grabbed images from various non-free sources and claimed them freely licensed. --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- exactly my point. Sylenius (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The photograhic work, not the car, is the copyrighted material.
- Delete - ok, I was reading to fast, can be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete © Aftonbladet -- --Common-Man | My Interactions 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
as stated by the uploader, this photo is made by Volvo, and is copyrighted material Sylenius (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We're not talking about the product but about the photo, which was certainly not taken by the uploader and is a commercial image made by Volvo, and grabbed from a website. It is a case of speedy delete honestly. Sylenius (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - sorry, I was reading too fast. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, possible copyvio, same as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nedoverbra.jpg Santosga (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private logo - out of scope Santosga (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Image quality seems to indicate screenshot of a TV broadcast Ytoyoda (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Image quality suggests screenshot of a TV broadcast. Even if it was a free image, it's poor quality. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation: The uploader is highly likely not the copyright holder of all the images that can be seen on this sheet. 80.187.103.148 07:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- delete, scanned from some magazine--Motopark (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is from this program of an awards event. If one looks closely, one can see "...d Art by Carson Pirie Scott & Company". Maybe it said "Copyrighted Art"? Anyway, very unlikely that copyright was renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. No evidence modern Bhutan stamps in public domain. Maidonian (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. No evidence modern Bhutan stamps in public domain. Maidonian (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. This modern design is almost ceratinly copyright the company that created it. Maidonian (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. No evidence modern stamps of Ethiopia in public domain. Maidonian (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was one of my earlier uploads. Unless it can be relicensed as PD because defunct government, since it was issued by the overthrown Mengistu regime, it will have to go. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. No evidence modern stamps of Gambia in public domain. Maidonian (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Licence appears incorrect. No evidence modern stamps of Gambia in public domain. Maidonian (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Grabbed from wildwinds.com Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this isn't exactly PD either, since the object is 3D. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of File:North by Northwest movie trailer screenshot (6).jpg Pabouk (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete one of the two files, (6) or (6bis). -- Asclepias (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (6bis). The old version of the (6) picture [1] should be the original from which (6bis) was made. --Pabouk (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/47/20080624114830!North_by_Northwest_movie_trailer_screenshot_%286%29.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source website djannat.com has "(c) Все права защищены" under its photos (translation: "All rights reserve") TheGrappler (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Source website djannat.com has "(c) Все права защищены" under its photos (translation: "All rights reserve") TheGrappler (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Source website djannat.com has "(c) Все права защищены" under its photos (translation: "All rights reserve") TheGrappler (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Self advertisement, only used on the own user-page. The user never made an edit exept this image (not even putting the image on the user-page). Commons is not a social network. No educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama for statues in USA. However, may be PD. More info about art/artist needed. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- According to the plaque at the right, this bas-relief is entitled "The Origins of Law" and is by Robert I. Russin. According to the Siris description, it dates to the late 1940s/early 1950s and didn't bear a © notice. That would make it {{PD-US-no notice}}, wouldn't it? The two bas-reliefs were originally mounted on the old law school building.[2] Lupo 13:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a 2005 photo of the two bas-reliefs still mounted on the (now demolished) building. Lupo 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no-notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
there is no foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actualy, the file is corrupted, but if you click to show whole picture you will see it. I have also problems with it in my computer - some programs can show the photo, some not. When I was making that picture, baterries were almost done in my camera. Can somebody help me to fix this file? (sorry for my poor english) Olos88 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I think I've resolved it ;) Olos88 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused banner/logo of a pt wikipedia newspaper that never took off, work abbandoned over 4 years ago - unusable in any other foreseeable context, out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image/vanity, no related article exists in pt or any other wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is sourced to www.biocrawler.com without any evidence of that website's release at the time of upload. (The current website has "Copyright 2009, Biofacts.com") ALSO, the license is PD-self, which is inconistent with sourcing to biocrawler.com GrapedApe (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is sourced to www.biocrawler.com, but there's no evidence at that website of any free license. The suposed quote from the website isn't enough evidence of a proper release. GrapedApe (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The image contains seven spelling mistakes. No longer used. ErikvanB (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete That's correct. The picture should be replaced by one without these errors. Fred Lambert (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per ErikvanB. --Gerardus (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with ErikvanB. Unfortunately, poor quality. Mathonius (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A few spelling mistakes are reason for correction, not for deletion. The information in this image is still useful, and there is no pressing reason to delete it until it has been replaced. Pbech (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the image has been replaced with the Dutch equivalent of the family tree template. The file was used on the article Filmcrew#Structuur permalink (see for example [3]). Mathonius (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. That was the only place where it was used. --ErikvanB (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please have a look at Commons:Deletion policy. I cannot find any reason there to delete this file. One cannot claim that it is "not realistically useful for educational purposes" just because of a few spelling mistakes, and "bad quality" is only a ground for deletion if a better quality image is actually available (which is not the case, as a "family tree template" is not an image, and in fact rather difficult to use for non-experts). I do not understand at all why you would like to see this image deleted. Pbech (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. That was the only place where it was used. --ErikvanB (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the image has been replaced with the Dutch equivalent of the family tree template. The file was used on the article Filmcrew#Structuur permalink (see for example [3]). Mathonius (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Spelling mistake is not a valid reason for deletion..--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused. Not likely to be used because of errors. Easy to replace or simply set in text. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a NASA image. It is a copyrighted Space-X image. 92.131.35.55 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - This image was deleted once. Why has it been recreated ? Hektor (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Image caption in source clearly states "Image at left: Artist's concept of SpaceX's Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle and Dragon crew and cargo capsules. Credit NASA". Tm (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. This is obviously not a NASA image. Why would NASA put a SpaceX logo on the images it creates ? Hektor (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I see the source, and I also see the K-1 proposal shown by NASA that uses a similar "template" to this image. I'm not sure about this... みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep @Hektor it was deleted incorrectly with no discussion. The image is only available through the NASA website or various news articles that also give NASA credit for the image, the image with NASA being listed as the author has been online for over four years which is plenty of time for the correct authors to have contacted NASA, the image has no history on SpaceX's website, and if you checked the source of the image another spacecraft is listed in a similar format which makes me believe that these picture were taken from a in-house slideshow for the COTS Program. To others if there's no proof that this image belongs to SpaceX other than a hunch than please stop deleting images when they a properly sourced.--Craigboy (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Nasa Image --Common-Man | My Interactions 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a NASA image; but a copyrighted Space X image 92.131.35.55 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the source page http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223 states clearly "Credit NASA". --GDK (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Image caption in source clearly states Credit NASA". Tm (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. SpaceX's own website states "credit NASA". -- Asclepias (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Not a NASA image.Hektor (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please at least provide a clue of what that statement might be based on, when available evidence says the contrary? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Souce is credited to NASA...--Common-Man | My Interactions 20:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of literary club in El Salvador with no notability or article in es or any other wiki project - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of band with no notability as decided here en:Octopoanima - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and not used anywhere. Is there evidence of consent? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license, Image is mistagged - source page shows it is licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0". Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - quite free, but not sufficiently free for the demands that Commons makes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license, Image is mistagged - source page shows it is licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0" Dmadeo (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect license, Image is mistagged - source page shows it is licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0" Dmadeo (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Unsure about the license. Original uploaders images all seem to have been taken from other sources. This appears to be the full version which W:File:Old100.jpg was made from. The derivative works carries: "Photos © Peter Arron/Esto" but uses the "PD-Self" and "permission" given by the uploader - who is not "Peter Arron/Esto". This image links to itself so to speak as the image was deleted at Wikipedia Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a derivative of an image licensed as "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" (source: Greg Giraldo, Jesse Joyce and me) Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Invalid license, improper derivative work as the license it was uploaded under is not compatible with the original license. --Terrillja (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Google Translate and the Archive.org, the terms of use of ismetozel.org (here http://web.archive.org/web/20060814032721/http://www.ismetozel.org/site/index.php ) were something like "permission required for reproduction". So this image would presumably need permission via OTRS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The uploader has uploaded several images using a "self" license but all credited to different photographers - Lloyd Wideman, Brandon W. Mudd, Bryan Clauson, James Compton Jr. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Has no sorce 80.187.103.61 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you try reading the file description page? Or is this vandalism deletion requests by anon IP contributors time? Ludicrous DR. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Question The work is signed "RT" - who is that? what year did he die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who is that? I have no idea and I doubt if anybody else does. The initials mean nothing to me, and I'm a collector of Welsh books with a serious interest in literature and the history of printing in Wales. Many of the illustrations found in Welsh books of the Victorian period are the work of local crafstmen engravers of whom we usually know little, if anything at all. Here are two good online sources: Y Bywgraffidur Ar-lein/Welsh Biography Online (section 'T') and the online collections of the National Museum of Wales (also section 'T'). Nothing remotely matching. I've also checked the standard biographical work for Wales, Y Bywgraffiadur Cymreig (equivalent of the English DNB): nothing. You would have to assume that the engraving was made when the engraver was a very young man and that he lived to be about 75 or more for this to come under copyright. Of course, he could just as equally have been born in 1810 and this was his last work, dying in 1896/7. Or maybe he was indeed a young man but tragically died shortly afterwards. In short, we don't know and probably never will know. Even if you find an engraver called R.... T.... you'd have to prove that it actually was him and not some other R.... T.... This engraving, which I assume to be from a photograph (common practice) could also have been made as early as c. 1880, judging by the very youthful appearance of O. M. Edwards (born 1858) in it, which pushes the date back even further. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a pretty anonymous work. Initials don't mean anything. In my opinion it's an anonymous-EU license.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is signed, and anonymous licenses cannot apply. Could be the same author as this engraving. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit that the initials are very similar. Good detective work! Now, assuming that the website author is correct and that our "RT" is actually "AT" (I'm not totally convinced after downloading the image for a close look), that still leaves us with the $60,000 Question, who was AT/RT? All it says on the page is "This image, signed AT, accompanied Wilkie's obituary in the Illustrated London News 28 September 1889", so it appears the website author doesn't know either. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think I found another one. It seems longer than RT, but the seller only gave these initials. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I think you could be right. Pity the image is too unclear to make out the surname. Or maybe it's just my eyesight? The issue of the London Illustrated News is dated December 27 1870, which makes it even more unlikely that the engraver would have lived to see the year 1941. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The seller reads that as 1890. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, my eyesight then! Image is not clear. Also found this on Wikisource. "R & E Taylor". Anatiomaros (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Closer to home, is this also our "RT/AT"? Anatiomaros (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The seller reads that as 1890. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I think you could be right. Pity the image is too unclear to make out the surname. Or maybe it's just my eyesight? The issue of the London Illustrated News is dated December 27 1870, which makes it even more unlikely that the engraver would have lived to see the year 1941. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think I found another one. It seems longer than RT, but the seller only gave these initials. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit that the initials are very similar. Good detective work! Now, assuming that the website author is correct and that our "RT" is actually "AT" (I'm not totally convinced after downloading the image for a close look), that still leaves us with the $60,000 Question, who was AT/RT? All it says on the page is "This image, signed AT, accompanied Wilkie's obituary in the Illustrated London News 28 September 1889", so it appears the website author doesn't know either. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is signed, and anonymous licenses cannot apply. Could be the same author as this engraving. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I could not read the year either... R&E, son and father? Also File:Napoleon III after Death - Illustrated London News Jan 25 1873-2.PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No doubt about it. "R. & E. Taylor" (needed the full-size image to see it). Anatiomaros (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bingo! Anatiomaros (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yesss! "active 1871-1901" - that should be good enough for PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank goodness for that! Thank you for an interesting and profitable session of collaborative detective work. Now my eyes can have a rest :-) Anatiomaros (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thank you too. And let's not forget the IP-number who made us look at all these old prints! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I forgive him/her - my reaction was a bit sharp, perhaps! - and indeed would like to join you in thanking them for adding to my knowledge of the printers and engravers of this period. Diolch yn fawr (Thank you). Anatiomaros (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thank you too. And let's not forget the IP-number who made us look at all these old prints! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank goodness for that! Thank you for an interesting and profitable session of collaborative detective work. Now my eyes can have a rest :-) Anatiomaros (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yesss! "active 1871-1901" - that should be good enough for PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bingo! Anatiomaros (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No doubt about it. "R. & E. Taylor" (needed the full-size image to see it). Anatiomaros (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I could not read the year either... R&E, son and father? Also File:Napoleon III after Death - Illustrated London News Jan 25 1873-2.PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Concept 2010flyer front.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader is the author, UDC. No valid license Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence given that uploader is UDC, the author. Therefore no valid license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence given that the author, UDC, is the uploader. Therefor, no valid license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
bad quality --Pass3456 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
not good Sofocle77 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the best image I have ever seen, but it certainly shows the subject well. Why do you, the uploader, want to delete it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Has no good source 80.187.103.61 23:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Subject died 1854, so PD-old can be assumed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete That's a bad assumption -- this is a watercolor or pastel, not a photograph and could have been made very recently. I got burned a few weeks ago on a similar portrait of a 19th century Pope that was done in 1998. Unless the date it was made (or, preferably, the author and his/her death date) is proven, we must delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Polarlys (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Requested 193.157.238.124 19:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain the reason for this DR or it will be closed as a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There are better official pictures available. --Makne (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
- We do not have any other photos that I could find with a fast look.
- This image is in use on WP:NO.
- "Better photos available" is not a reason for deletion of an image of a notable person -- while we probably wouldn't want hundreds of photos of this man, we might easily keep five or ten.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Wpaartrosedavis
[edit]
All files are unused banners/logos of a couple of activists and their organization with no notability/vanity; no related article exists in any wiki project - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Cropped from File:Massoud-Tomb01.JPEG - probably derivative of non-free content, not longer de minimis – unless the US Army holds the copyrights of the photo on that tablet. See similar case last month [4] Sommerkom (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File%3AAhmad_Shah_Massoud.JPG){kind=link}
- What about {{PD-Afghanistan}} for the subject? --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- For {{PD-Afghanistan}} we need to prove that the picture was first published in Afghanistan – which might be difficult considering the circumstances. This makes PD-Afghan close to useless. Anyway, proving the opposite was easy in this case: The image is obviously derived from this picture, which is clearly copyrighted. Most famous images depicting Massoud were shot by foreign photographers so crops from billboards etc will always most likely be copyvios. --Sommerkom (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unreasonable demands for proof can make any tag useless. Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - This image was captured by w:Reza Deghati (Reza) in 1985 [5] during a meeting with Ahmad Schah Massoud.[6] Reza (or National Geographic Society in USA) are the copyright holder.--Officer (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unreasonable demands for proof can make any tag useless.
- For {{PD-Afghanistan}} we need to prove that the picture was first published in Afghanistan – which might be difficult considering the circumstances. This makes PD-Afghan close to useless. Anyway, proving the opposite was easy in this case: The image is obviously derived from this picture, which is clearly copyrighted. Most famous images depicting Massoud were shot by foreign photographers so crops from billboards etc will always most likely be copyvios. --Sommerkom (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Source is a dead link now, no clues about possible free license. Masur (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-verifiable license. Elfhelm (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- when I uploaded this picture, sysyops checked the source and license of this picture. many of pictures of commons may have cead links. we must delete them?!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Only the ones with very dubious free licenses. GFDL is dubious (the license was initially designed for software and not media; therefore iranian websites granting their content under GFDL is... uncommons), domain is dubious (iranian semi-amateur website, which probably anyway doesn't have copyrights to used media) and this website clearly says: كلیه حقوق این سایت متعلق به سایت ساجد می باشد. which all together makes this image freely licensed very unlikely. Masur (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
you right, but for now! and no for date of upload. when we uploaded these pictures from sajed, all of the multimedia files if it were under GFDL. so, sysops let users upload many pictures from it to commons. in last month ago, this website changed it license. after this change, nobody didnt upload any picture from if to here. but sysops didnt want us delete old pictures from GFDL license time. Eusebius or martin h can emphasize to my talks.(free licese of website at upload time). you can contact them.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- 2008 sajed.ir/pe archive (I couldn't find any from early 2010, but it shows the point) really says that its content was under GFDL. So ok - my mistake - when you're uploading it, it was correctly marked as GFDL. However one question remains - whether this portal is copyright holder for its media conetent. This I doubt. Masur (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
no. your welcome. this isnt your fault. I must explaind.
Ididnt know the answer of your question. sysops accepted these images but you may right too. If you agree we can Assume good faith for this case. this doubt is for about three years agoGire 3pich2005 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is terribly inaccurate. Conty (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- But you're the author... If it's inaccurate, can't you correct it? –Tryphon☂ 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. And there's was plenty of time to replace those uses or correct the file. Rocket000 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate depiction. Conty (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- This skull restoration are too inaccurate in shape to be used on Wikipedia. Conty (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use, thus in scope. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 14:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The shape of the skull are inaccurate, and must be deleted. Conty (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. See above. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
the picture is not correct Reinhardhauke (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The picture is not correct????? Don't understand. Please specify---TUBS
06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Unscharf und durch Lichteinwirkung gestört!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
License not usabale. As this flag is not of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). ALE! ¿…? 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Who cares, must be PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I care! I am an Admin and I have to care. We need to know where this drawing comes from, otherwise it has to be deleted. (However, I agree that the image is probably PD-old.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Even without a source this picture is obviously old enough and I think that nobody could claim copyright for this old version of the German flag. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It was never the German flag! --ALE! ¿…? 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I care! I am an Admin and I have to care. We need to know where this drawing comes from, otherwise it has to be deleted. (However, I agree that the image is probably PD-old.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - I don't think the author will have lived another 125 years after creation of this - Jcb (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Files by User:Srown
[edit]- File:Museoleskovac.jpg - SONY DSC-V1 - cropped from usluznicentar.com
- File:Rostiljijada.jpg - No EXIF
- File:Belvip.jpg - Canon PowerShot S50 - likely taken from the official site of the airport: [7]
- File:Belvip3.jpg - Canon PowerShot S50 - I can't this file on the BEG official site ([8]), but it's quite possible that it was available in 2007
- File:Belvip4.jpg - Canon PowerShot S50 - same as above
- File:Belvip5.jpg - Canon PowerShot S50 - same as above
- File:Jezerobarije.jpg - No camera EXIF
- File:Leskovaccrkva.jpg - No camera EXIF
- File:Leskovacnocu.jpg - HP ScanJet 2400
- File:Leskovacosmospratnica.jpg - No camera EXIF
- File:Leskovacsirokacarsija.jpg - No camera EXIF
- File:Leskovacspomenpark.jpg - FinePix S602 ZOOM
- File:Leskovaczima.jpg - No EXIF
- File:LeskovacDubocica.jpg - No camera EXIF
![[7]](http://web.archive.org/web/20071013150354/http://www.beg.aero/upload/images/galerije/VIPsalon/velike/003.jpg){kind=link}
User:Srown in the single day, 23 October 2007, uploaded ~30 files. It's all their contribution on Commons. All these file lacked description, date, source, author information, and contained only empty {{Information}} template & PD-self tag. Three weeks later IP-user 99.228.76.77 added to these files authorship information -- source: Self-made, Author: User:Srown. There are two problems:
1) I see no proof that 99.228.76.77 (looks like it's a Canadian IP) is connected with User:Srown.
2) Even if User:Srown = 99.228.76.77, the pictures have every sign of copyvio -- web resolution, most of pictures have no EXIF, some photos with EXIF were created using different cameras, the quality of the pictures differs drastically (compare File:Rostiljijada.jpg and File:Leskovaczima.jpg). Uploads are very old (~3 year old), so it's hard to find exact sources, but I've found the likely source in one case or two. Trycatch (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)