Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.svg){kind=link}
because there is another picture of a building called furness.jpg Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The file name was conflicting with another file located at the English Wikipedia. File now renamed to File:Rachel Furness.jpg to prevent this. ZooFari 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused, BLP violation, should not be here without strong justification Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Highly dubious source of "google.es" - most likely an unfree publicity photo. Seidenstud (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Obviously author and source don't match, so most likely unfree. ZooFari 03:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright viol/false license. Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
senseless upload testing Asmsus b (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
senseless upload testing Asmsus b (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
senseless upload testing Asmsus b (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. http://www.ramapuramforanechurch.org/feast.htm Vssun (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No EXIF, low resolution image, probably a copyvio. — Tanvir • 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Flickrwashing by User:MegaPackerboy Justass (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, low quality. Out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Martin H. ZooFari 03:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above; also low res. Infrogmation (talk)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused fictional flag drawn by uploader. No educational use that I can see. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Ilmari Karonen. ZooFari 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
file is being used only for promotional purposes in wikipedia article [1], also appears to be copy vio [2] WookieInHeat (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WookieInHeat. ZooFari 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The originality of the logo is in dispute. mechamind90 04:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks to me to be arrangement of simple text + simple geometric figures. I'd think is fine as labeled with trademark notice. Infrogmation (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The Erie Lackawanna (the right hand of the two) existed from 1960-1976. A logo created before 1964 would have required renewal 28 years later, but the railroad was gone by then, so we can safely say {{PD-US-notrenewed}}. Also, of course, is the fact that both probably qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused, not useful in my opinion. ZooFari 06:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation, upload based on false public domain rationale — Yerpo Eh? 06:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is cover of book Huda jama. Cover of book is not public domain?
I asked for permission too, but Editor has much of work and I hope, he shall answer positively to my letter in some days. So do not delete it. --Stebunik (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Dovoljenje za sliko Huda jama
Danes sem po telefonu dobil dovoljenje od urednika Družine ne le za objavo naslova Hude jame, ampak tudi slik in besedila. Tehničnemu uredniku je že naročil, naj mi pošlje še originalnih slik, za katere je tudi dal ustno dovoljenje, da se objavijo. Ko sem skeniral naslovno stran knjig Huda jama, je to res naslovna stran, platnice. Toda brošura je prevelika, pa je moj skener ni mogel cele zajeti. Toliko v pojasnilo. Sicer pa sem nekje na Wikipediji prebral, da se lahko naslovnice knjig uporabi v poštene namene. Ali za Hudo jamo ne velja? (Slovenian)--Stebunik (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- file:Huda-jama 2009.jpg{{OTRS pending}}--Stebunik (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
I doubt if the Editor has the right to release the photograph on the cover to Commons -- photographs for book covers are typically licensed for that specific use -- so this would require permission from the photographer also. If that comes, we can easily undelete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reopened debate (without undeleting image). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand: it is contradiction. If I recieved license from Editor, from whom recieved license he? The photograph gave him license, because he made photo for editor and editing. How many licenses are consequently necessary? It seems as circulus vitiosus. Editor gave me license through telefon. It is easier as between many work yet write: he has other work too, I think. --Stebunik (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- We may have a language problem here. In English (and in American and British book publishing practice), "Editor" is a person who works with words, making changes to text and, in some cases, selecting what will be included in a book. An Editor does not design the cover of the book or have anything to do with copyright. "Publisher" is the person or company that takes the work of the author and editor, designs the cover, and has the book printed. The publisher typically owns the copyright, therefore my comment above that an editor was unlikely to be able to give us what we need.
- If, in fact, you think that the person you have talked to has the right to license the image, then you and he or she must follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. There are instructions there in several languages. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- License gave me Publisher not only for cover of book, but about pictures in book and text too, through telephon. I cannot always disturbe him. I made the best I could and he too, I think. If it is so complicate thing, I shall not scane more. --Stebunik (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, so be it. The required procedure is at Commons:OTRS -- if you cannot ask for that then the image must remain deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Unreadable and unused Jack ma (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 10:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
possible copyright violation --Valentim (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's odd: A user with non-korean name is uploading a picture from a korean source (see also tineye.com) and tagged it with PD-self. The bad resolution of this picture (I can't read all names written there) is another reason why I am suspicious. It is also the only edit this user has made on Commons and looking to his global contributions I can't see anything which could verify that this user is really the copyright holder of this image. --Valentim (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted poster with copyrighted emblem of BMS. Vssun (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Free image without watermark can be created easily. This image should be deleted Vssun (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zarinekhan.jpg and this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vijender singh with amrita rao.jpg As {{Watermark}} is not a direct for {{Speedy}} option, This file can be changed not to be deleted (Based upon the lesson from above arguments)-- --Common-Man (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Removed watermark --Sreejith K (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep Now its okay, Old image can be deleted..--Common-Man | My Interactions 08:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright concerns. The subject of the image died in 1909, but this is not a straightforward photograph; it is either a chalk rendering or a photograph that has been artistically enhanced. There is insufficient information to determine who created it or when. The subject is at the center of a scandalous murder in New Jersey, and interest in her could easily have persisted beyond 1923. In fact, it did. While it is sourced to "Rutgers University archive", the link given is to "NEW JERSEY HISTORY'S MYSTERIES!". The image is no longer hosted there that I can find, so it does not seem useful to determine the status of the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be a photograph with some hand-retouching, in a style common for photographs reproduced for publication in the early years of the 20th century. While better sourcing would be preferred, I see no reason to doubt this is a pre-1923 US PD work. Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused image with description like "Logo of my company". Is that in Commons Scope? The image was used in a user page on fr.wikipedia, but it has been removed. Ö 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
logo of non existent soccer club, nonsensical, no relevance as decided here es:Fororo Champions - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
kit of non existent soccer club, nonsensical, no relevance as decided here es:Fororo Champions - out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. Getty images. See http://www.tineye.com/search/504401f8de1e432a04061390b19adc47ea7faced/?sort=size&order=desc. Probably more images of that user are not own work. No exif data Wouter (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized, no in scope usefulness evident. Appears to be self promotion; self made logo for band. No evidence of notability. Logo references a website address that does not currently exist. --Infrogmation (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Erronous. The flag of Saudi Arabia is identical on both sides. Zyido (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I had actually uploaded that image based on information from an entry on Flags of the World. It turns out it was an old link, and when I inspected the currently active site (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sa.html) it clearly states that the flag is in fact identical on both sides with the sword always pointing to the left. I edited the page on Wikipedia accordingly, now all that's left is to delete this image as well as the PNG version. -- Zyido (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Out of scope, spam, not in use. --Don-kun (Diskussion) 19:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Justass (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Hannibal stark cropped.jpg replaced this. Ppntori (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that this file is the own work of the uploader. Not only the lack of EXIF data or the small image resolution underline this but the watermark www.kromatika.net, too. High Contrast (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is Exif data, the image is a reasonable size, and the uploader's Username is kromatika which suggests that the uploader might own www.kromatika.net. That's not proof, but it suggests we should assume good faith. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Сайт http://www.russianbookstores.com не разрешает использовать свои фото по свободной лицензии. Agent001 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Фото взято с сайта http://www.soitology.com/, где лежало в открытом доступе и без пометок о лицензии. --VisioN (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Нет, изначально был указан сайт [russianbookstores.com]. Но сайт soitology.com закопирайчен, читаем внимательно - "© 2004-2010. Все права зарегистрированы. Институт соитологии".--Agent001 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
File has been removed from Bundesarchiv for possible legal issues - licensing status unclear. --84.188.140.146 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is the problem? --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- [3] (a generic notice) may be all we get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Difficult. What wouldyou propose to do? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I requested clarification from the Bundesarchiv by e-mail. --91.38.201.251 13:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Difficult. What wouldyou propose to do? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- [3] (a generic notice) may be all we get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/images/BArch-dummy-layout.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. The Bundesarchiv had have the wrong photographer in the database. It is not "Linke" but instead "Leske, Peter". With the latter they don't have an agreement. Thanks for reporting the error. Raymond 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
bad quality --Valentim (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The resolution is so bad I can only read a few words (including the headline). For the rest of the words: It remains a riddle for me if I can see the landscape or letters (I can't identify). No further use on any other projects (see [4]). --Valentim (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=%E9%9F%93%E5%9C%8Bmap+of+korea.jpg&w=_100000&m=&x=&go=Check+Usage&b=0#end){kind=link}
- {{vd}} User was informed and is active, but until now no reaction regarding this file was given. Without a quality update this file is imho not realistically useful for an educational purpose. There are also plenty of alternatives, see Category:Maps of Korea. --Valentim (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note to User:Valentim -- it is customary not to add Delete to your own DR. At first glance it looked to me as if we had three comments here, when in fact you made them all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will keep that in mind. I disabled souce code now. Thank you for your advice. --Valentim (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note to User:Valentim -- it is customary not to add
- Keep I disagree. The only viable alternative topographic map in Category:Maps of Korea is File:Korea_topographic_map.png and it does not show as much detail on land or sea. It also has no place names, so the fact that the text is unreadable here is not necessarily a problem. If I were editing Korea and wanted a topo map, I would probably use this one.
- Also, as a matter of policy, we do not choose between alternatives or try to keep only the "best" image of a subject. As seen here, "best" is very subjective and we leave such decisions to the users. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It look to me derivative of other map, so i search. This site link us to an Engilish version of the same map her. Written below the map legend Pulished February, 2007 by the Ministry of Constrruction & Transpotation National Geographic Information Institute, Republic of Korea Http://www.ngii.go.kr. Geagea (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. as copyvio. no proper source as Own work is 99.9% unlikely here. Amada44 talk to me 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a bad machine translation, as far as I can tell. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The source is questionable, as the purported file from which it is derived from appears blank. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- The source was a .svg file (now deleted) by Corrupt or empty file. OK, I also saw it blank; the user who uploaded it told me that it contained something (only visible with Inkscape). That .svg file came from File:Poesías_jocosas_y_serias_del_célebre_Dr._Vicens_García_(1820).djvu, which has valid sources and permissions. That .png page is used at s:ca:Pàgina:Poesías jocosas y serias del célebre Dr. Vicens García (1820).djvu/131 (Catalan Wikisource), and is the only way of displaying vertical text at the Proofread page system (in fact, at any Wiki, as argued at Catalan Wikisource's Scriptorium, French Wikisource and its links to other Wikis).
- So please, do not delete. -Aleator (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a bad machine translation, as far as I know. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
PD-1923 doesn't operate for an (apparent) 1924 work and there is no evidence that the image is in the public domain in another way. Hekerui (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Many US works from that date are PD for one reason or another, but neither the description page nor the website linked as an (intermediate) "source" give sufficient information on actual source/authorship to make any determination. Photo is currently widely used in many Wikipedias. Infrogmation (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As comment says, this file is a copy of a file originally found in en.wp. The original file was deleted in en.wp for being unsourced and biased, so should its copy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_29#Westerncultures_map.png for details. Netrat (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - lacks explanation why some countries are deemed to be western cultures, while others aren't. For example, why is Greece a western culture, but Montenegro isn't. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Being unsourced and biased is not a reason for deletion on Commons. As far as I can tell it was correctly deleted on wikipedia according to their policies, but Commons has different policies. Commons has Commons:SCOPE. See Commons:SCOPE#"Neutral point of view". Meanwhile I have added {{information}} and added the original author and date. I have also added this neutral and, to me, more informative description: "Map of the world with some regions shown in blue: North and South America, South Africa, part of Europe, and Australasia." I would agree that the file name could be changed to improve its usefulness. -84user (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per COM:NPOV; in use. –Tryphon☂ 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Research: Most of the map may be correct, but it does not cite any source. There is no list of countrys part of the western world which is commonly accepted Antemister (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no original research and lack of sources (other than a source for the actual image) is not a valid reason for deletion on Commons. Please read the previous failed deletion request. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Should be speedy kept, as nothing has changed since the last DR, and the image is in use on several projects. –Tryphon☂ 15:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per Mattbuck and Tryphon. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Clearly incorrect license. Soviet space program image, tagged as a NASA work. This had been tagged as nsd; since the image is in use in many Wikipedias I have changed it to a deletion request to get more attention to the image, in case it might be corrected and found usable under some tag other than the incorrect one shown. --Infrogmation (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
