Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The Flickr version is not an original. Larger versions (although watermarked) can be found on the internet, for instance [1] (which also has a wider crop). --~ Eusebius (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://persepolise.persiangig.com/image/ghotbi.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. The nom is correct, this looks like Flckr washing. The uploader is likely a sockpuppet of User:Amir.Hossein.7055, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Returning sock and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 16#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer. Various socks of User:Amir.Hossein.7055 have been very persistent in uploading images of Afshin Ghotbi, both here and at en-wiki, see also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055/Archive. The most recent sock blocked here at Commons, User:What's ur name? uploaded an image (since deleted) of Ghotbi with obviously false copyright info. The same user had uploaded here a Flckr image of Mansour Ebrahimzadeh (also deleted since then) sourced to the same Flckr user, Nimatehran, as this image of Ghotbi. Note that one of the user-names used by the socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 at en-wiki is Ninatehran. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Likely Flckr washing. The uploader is likely a sockpuppet of User:Amir.Hossein.7055, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghotbi.jpg, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Returning sock and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 16#Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer. Various socks of User:Amir.Hossein.7055 have been very persistent in uploading images of Afshin Ghotbi, both here and at en-wiki, see also en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055/Archive. The most recent sock blocked here at Commons, User:What's ur name? uploaded an image (since deleted) of Ghotbi with obviously false copyright info. The same user had uploaded here a Flckr image of Mansour Ebrahimzadeh (also deleted since then) sourced to the same Flckr user, Nimatehran, as this image of Ebrahimzadeh - in fact sourced to the same flkr image. Note that one of the user-names used by the socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 at en-wiki is Ninatehran. So we are dealing here with a long-term sockpuppeteer with a long and extensive history of providing false copyright info, both here and at en-wiki. AGF does not apply in such a case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Supposedly GFDL and CC. I don't think so in my opinion. ZooFari 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - I marked it as "{{copyvio|1=http://www.interlogicinc.com/images/IL_Logo.jpg as displayed by http://www.interlogicinc.com/ which also says "Copyright 2010© All Rights Reserved."}}"
Deleted. Speedy to me Herby talk thyme 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Screen Shot (see image size & noise) KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete - flickrwashing per http://www.flickr.com/photos/72674535@N00/376998932/ — Jeff G. ツ 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: File:4 actors.jpg (deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:4 actors.jpg)
http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/72/Harikrishnans.jpg & Appearing in many web pages KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{VK}} - en.academic.ru uses content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. All the copies of this photo I've found have lower resolution. Strangely, the Flickr uploader reduced the resolution from 572 × 428 to 500 × 374. — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)- Delete - (q)So from where this high resolution picture came..?? (a)look at these links Link 1 & Link 2 --KALARICKAN | My Interactions 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Binukalarickan and Hekerui - http://www.flickr.com/photos/15971937@N07/1732400907/ casts further doubt on the flickr uploader's attention to detail in copyright matters. Movies aren't CC-BY-SA. — Jeff G. ツ 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr washing, looking at the other uploads (resembles a fan page), no evidence the flickr uploader is the author. Hekerui (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Screen Shot from printed materials KALARICKAN | My Interactions 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - flickrwashing per http://www.flickr.com/photos/72674535@N00/376998932/ — Jeff G. ツ 03:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: File:4 actors.jpg (deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:4 actors.jpg)
This file violates the copyright, how are you images are of type business and are not allowed in commons Elberth 00001939 (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs342.snc4/41569_130239066988506_4782224_n.jpg as displayed by http://www.facebook.com/Realidad20 which also says "© 2010". — Jeff G. ツ 06:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs342.snc4/41569_130239066988506_4782224_n.jpg as displayed by http://www.facebook.com/Realidad20 which also says "© 2010".
No license tag! Also, maybe copyvio. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - definitely a copyvio. Disney cares deeply about its copyrights and is not in the habit of not renewing them. — Jeff G. ツ 21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Actually, speedy delete per nom. Obviously some kind of fair use, which is NOT allowed in the Commons. みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged it as "{{copyvio|1=Original theatrical poster for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Artwork © 1938 Walt Disney Productions and RKO Radio Pictures.}}" — Jeff G. ツ 06:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. dave pape (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Umbenannt in Category:St. Joseph Bielefeld. Der wahre Jakob (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - I believe that the nominator wants to delete this category because its name is inferior to that of Category:St. Joseph Bielefeld, to which it was effectively renamed. — Jeff G. ツ 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. empty ca tTúrelio (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1) The image has the incorrect colors for the subject and 2) There is a vector version of this image that makes this obsolete and which has the correct colors. -—Danorton (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)- Keep We don't delete images that are in use for those types of reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes and because I fixed the colors. — Jeff G. ツ 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment What’s the purpose of what is essentially an identical duplicate? —Danorton (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The sets of bugs for vector and non-vector images are different, and historically people have been very frustrated when their working non-vector images were replaced with vector images that broke. Thus we don't consider a vector image and a non-vector image to be duplicates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like an outdated and inefficient legacy practice that needs to be phased out. Unless I misunderstand something, the subject item is, in fact, identical to this bitmapped rendering of the superior version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Flag_of_Texas.svg/384px-Flag_of_Texas.svg.png. —Danorton (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Inefficient in what sense? We've wasted far more server space and time on this DR then leaving the PNG there would have taken. In any case, this is not the place to discuss the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It’s legacy bloat. It you don’t feel it’s worth discussing, then stop discussing it and delete it. If this isn’t the place to discuss it, show me where contrary policy is written and I’ll raise it there. —Danorton (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Inefficient in what sense? We've wasted far more server space and time on this DR then leaving the PNG there would have taken. In any case, this is not the place to discuss the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like an outdated and inefficient legacy practice that needs to be phased out. Unless I misunderstand something, the subject item is, in fact, identical to this bitmapped rendering of the superior version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Flag_of_Texas.svg/384px-Flag_of_Texas.svg.png. —Danorton (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The sets of bugs for vector and non-vector images are different, and historically people have been very frustrated when their working non-vector images were replaced with vector images that broke. Thus we don't consider a vector image and a non-vector image to be duplicates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no policy-based reasons for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality; Image de très mauvaise qualité[2]
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Camarma-Image1.png&diff=44399983&oldid=25923767){kind=link}
- Delete per nom - this image is not in use and looks so much worse than File:Escudo de Camarma de Esteruelas.svg. — Jeff G. ツ 00:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Private moment, no consent. The photograher's description on FlickR does not indicate the sort of consent we would be happy with. Simonxag (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{Personality rights}} should suffice for such a picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{VK}} per TwoWings. — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per Prosfilaes and COM:PEOPLE. "Work for hire" is insufficient excuse; pixellation or model releases would be much better. — Jeff G. ツ 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)- Delete (as nominator) I quote the photographer's description :- 15 dollars each.. picked up at a bar called: the voodoo lounge hah Phnom Phen - Cambodia. Clearly this is taken in a hotel room (a private place) and is more than a friendly European greeting kiss. Though the photo is posed, it is not at all clear that the girls agreed to work as models for an image to be released to the internet. Being publicly exposed as a prostitute can be harmful in many societies. --Simonxag (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess you're right. But you're drawing easy conclusions. "15 dollars each" means they were paid... but why would it be for prostitution ? It could only be for striptease performance or an equivalent, which would be far less problematic than prostitution in term of image... and whatever the reality is, what do we see on the picture : two women about to lip-kiss each other. What's so bad about that in term of image ? Actually we can't even say if they did kiss. I know my comment may seem naive to you but IMO I think it's exagerated to "ban" such an "innocent" picture. BTW : the original Flickr comment hasn't been kept here and I modified the text on purpose when I uploaded the picture because 1) I decided not to trust such a comment and 2) this wasn't interesting anyway ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sole private stuff without any educational purpose! Can someone explain why we need that pic? --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike Yikrazuul, I find human sexuality and behavior in general very educational, and encourage a variety of races and nationalities in our pictures, which is currently lacking; however, this is a private picture where the photographer implied it was prostitution, and I think it clearly violates COM:PEOPLE. As that guideline says, {{Personality rights}} does nothing to solve the problem that this is very intrusive into the privacy of the photographed, who probably would be very upset about this photograph showing up on the Khmer Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 00:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Bestaat reeds onder andere naam. -Johan Krommenhoek (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: duplicate of File:HCK Tergooiziekenhuizen 1.png. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Jacklee. — Jeff G. ツ 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:HCK Tergooiziekenhuizen 1.png
i want it Souligne (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and because the photo is watermarked and the third on http://badoo.com/0176461749/e436164. — Jeff G. ツ 06:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 01:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Picture was created in 1914 so I preassume that Peritus is not the author of this photo[3]
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Erich_Mendelsohn1914.jpg&diff=44637880&oldid=44299390){kind=link}
- Delete per nom — Jeff G. ツ 00:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There's not a lot of creativity here, but there's enough to cross the line of PD-ineligible Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 03:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative, focusing on the ballpark's artwork. BrokenSphere (Talk) 03:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and COM:FOP#United States. — Jeff G. ツ 04:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploader's only upload, dubious "own work". Unused. ZooFari 05:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
logo under copyright. Ionutzmovie (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Jacklee. This is the copyrighted logo of A.C. Milan, best represented on a Wikimedia project by fair use file w:File:AC Milan.svg. — Jeff G. ツ 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- How old is it? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to find that information, but failed. Assistance from someone who reads the Italian language would be helpful. — Jeff G. ツ 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- How old is it? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Did you want someone who knows italian? Here I am ;) Obvious copyright violations, logo is copyrighted: here registration data at WIPO (n° 515896, as also reported in ) and here registration data at Ufficio italiano brevetti e marchi (UIBM) (n° 0000654039 - domada MI1992C007801). Another registration can also be found at w:OAMI (http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/it_SearchBasic?language=en) with number 008456618. --Simo82 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, these are trademark registrations. No one is arguing that the image is not under trademark, but this has absolutelly nothing to do with copyright (and is therefore irrelevant for this decission). It's just the age that matters. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here there is the legal notices on AC Milan official website, in particular number 2 and 3 (but only in italian, transltion with google is good, missing "is forbidden" - è vietato - in the last sentence). This logo was first used in 1986, before there was another one (it can be seen here). I still think that this image should be deleted. --Simo82 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. The snake is not simple. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an upside-down reproduction of the painting depicted in File:Paul Cézanne 148.jpg and File:Cezanne annecy.jpg! Ham (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also delete File:Cezanne annecy.jpg because it is far fewer pixels than File:Paul Cézanne 148.jpg, and is now unused. — Jeff G. ツ 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This logo is owned by Google Inc, which owns other products with other logos that have originality required for copyright as soon as the Gmail logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gmail_logo.png for example. Not only to the principal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YouTube_logo.svg Wikipedia Anglophone and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier: Youtube.png Wikipedia in French adopt the policy of copyright. Unless the author have a permission to use the YouTube logo in commons is a violation of copyright put this file in a public domain in a open source space. Vinicius Lima (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did you notice the two templates {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} and did you understand their meaning? --Leyo 13:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes i understand and the question is that logo are protected in copyright policy in many countries. The user upload a lot of irregulary logos, all deleted. If a lot of Wikipedia used to protect in restrict upload why to put in a open source as Commons? Vinicius Lima (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is ironic not?Vinicius Lima (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very obvious PD-Textlogo case. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per PaterMcFly. Also, less than half of the uploader's uploads have been deleted.[4] — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think that it is inappropriate to have “por Hernando” in the file name. Hence, the file should be moved. --Leyo 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, not able to be copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Damiens.rf 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep It is original, no question, but it is {{PD-Textlogo}} -- a logo with only text cannot be copyrighted. It can be trademarked, but that does not concern us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - obvious case of PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Electrically-hauled_express_train_in_Natal,_South_Africa_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information to substantiate PD claim, South Africa I think was life+50 rule. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So change the template to {{PD-South-Africa}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a work by an effectively anonymous photographer, with a publication date of 82 years ago. That just isn't a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all knowledgeable on copyright issues in SA or anywhere. I'm sure, though, that most of the images will eventually be usable on Wikipedia since many are of objects that no longer exist. In fact I'm sure that in some cases the image in question may very well be the only one in existence of the subject.
- In this case, IMHO, one should first consider whether there's a copyright issue with uploading contents from the book itself, not with each individual image. The images are from all over the place anyway, probably all by different creators, and some of them have also been used in other publications (eg by Leith Paxton in 2008, marked "C 2008 Leith Paxton"). So I'd suggest the book's admissability should be considered first, then determine how each image's copyright was dealt with in the book itself and proceed from there. André Kritzinger (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Our firm policy is that copies of flat art and photographs from any source country do not acquire an additional copyright other than that belonging to the original. Therefore if the original photograph is PD-UK-unknown, then we can take the image from any available source, including this 1928 book, even though the book is still in copyright.
Therefore we have a photograph taken before 1928 in South Africa, but as far as we know, first published in the UK. The photographer was not credited in the 1928 book, so he or she is certainly anonymous. (This is not a case where we know that a photographic print exists in a museum that may have a photographer's name on the back.) Therefore, the photograph is {{PD-UK-unknown}} and the scan is {{PD-Art}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information to substantiate PD-claim , European copyright term is life+70, and this looks like a tinted photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If you'd care to identify the anonymous artist, then we might be able to establish their date of death and see whether it's relevant. Otherwise we're restricted to the publication date for such an effectively anonymous work, which is 82 years ago and so not a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Electrically-hauled express train in Natal, South Africa (CJ Allen, Steel Highway, 1928).jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
because name conflict with image in wikipedia. ( I have uploded this image with new name with no problems) Adam majewski (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: exact duplicate of "File:SpiralM23 2.png". Next time, just tag the file with {{Rename}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
see {{NoFoP-France}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Errr... I would strongly expect that this statue was errect during the reign of Louis XVI, which makes it clearly PD. Keep unless there's proof that the statue is really newer. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sculptor Pierre Cartellier died 1831. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Actor himself uploaded this image.....??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bheeman_Reghu#File_source_and_copyright_licensing_problem_with_File:Bheeman_Reghu.jpg) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - insufficient reason to delete. — Jeff G. ツ 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Look at the history of this user and met deletion for the same before. Its unbelievable that the actor himself uploaded this image to the commons, Can be a fly-by user came on the name of actor...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - up-loader is not a regular or trusted one????...--...Captain......Tälk tö me..06:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Used as official politic party flag, no source, personnal work, cannot verify if approved by party UncivilFire (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Ineligible}} should do well here, the symbol on the flag for shure doesn't belong to any recent party. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Party was created in 2008 and dissociated next year, so it's pretty recent... I have to admit though, that the file itself may not violate anything. But associating it with the Union du centre party while the party never seemed to use it, isn't that illegal? Should we just remove it from the articles and keep it on commons? --UncivilFire (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and apparently out of scope. (Other uploads by the same user are strange too.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - attempted use was met with "Annulation des modifications 58377771 de DrMtl ( d ) Drapeau semble n'avoir jamais été utilisé. On ne peut pas mettre un faux drapeau à un parti"[5] (Undo revision 58377771 by DrMtl (d) Flag apparently never been used. We can not put a false flag of a party) and "Undid revision 392548221 by DrMtl (talk) Flag never seemed to be used anywhere. Please give details, you cannot put any flag on any party"[6]. However, would we have use for a File:Red flag with white Fleur-de-lis in the top right corner.png? — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 24 October 2010
- File:Arthur Rimbaud à Roche.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rimbaud à Roche.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP#France. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Most likely this is not a picture of Pehr Löfling since no such picture is known to exist. 80.216.132.109 18:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Says who? --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Olle Franzén says in Svensk Biografisk Lexikon that no portrait is known from his lifetime. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep From his lifetime. This may well be a later engraving; "contemporary" doesn't exclude soon after his death. Should we delete File:MosesMosaic.jpg, since it's not likely a picture of Moses because it was created thousands of years after his death? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Olle Franzén says in Svensk Biografisk Lexikon that no portrait is known from his lifetime. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
It might be appropriate to add a note to the effect that this was "said to be" an image of Pehr Löfling, but uncertainty is not a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I would please ask that this image be removed from WikiPedia as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a historical portrait of Pehr Löfling. It was uploaded as such to Wikipedia in 2006, but prior to this it has been an established fact among scholars that no contemporary portrait of him exists, even if we give "contemporary" a very loose meaning. The argument has been made in previous deletion requests that it could be a portrait made some time after his death which of course would be fine, but judging by the characteristics of the image it predates Löfling’s lifetime – late 17th rather than mid/late 18th century. Also, the moderator in a previous deletion debate has stated that uncertainty is no cause for deletion, which I completely agree with. But the reverse should also hold true, i.e., one single unsubstantiated claim from one anonymous user should not be cause for inclusion, especially if there are several factors speaking against it. Over the last few years, I have made several attempts to contact the user who uploaded the image in order to request information about where it came from, but received no response. Studying his/her profile it is clear that this user has uploaded many images now flagged due to lack of attribution, copyright information etc. Adding this to the arguments made above, it should be quite clear that there is at present no credibility in the claim that the image is a portrait of Pehr Löfling, meant to be interpreted as such prior to it being uploaded to WikiPedia in 2006. I am not saying it is 100% certain it is not such a portrait, but right now there is 0% evidence that it is and several factors indicating it isn’t, and because of that it should be removed.
The last time I requested deletion and very briefly argued that there are no known portraits of Löfling, the question was asked ”Says who?” In this case, if it matters, my name is Kenneth Nyberg and I am an Associate Professor of History at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. My field of research for the last eight years has been Swedish scientific travel in the 18th century, where Löfling is one of the students of Carl Linnaeus that I have studied more especially. This does *not* mean I cannot be wrong in matters concerning Löfling, but it does mean that the points made here is based on a thorough knowledge of the current state of research in the field. 80.216.132.109 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The problem here is that we have not explained our policy to you as well as we might. Although you have excellent credentials for making this decision -- probably one of the top experts on the subject in the world -- WMF projects do not care about expertise. Unlike most Encyclopedias -- Britannica, for example, which has signed articles from recognizable names on many subjects -- the WMF projects assume that there are no experts and rely on rules. In WP, the rule is that any assertion must be backed by a citation. In Commons, the rule is that any image that is in use within WMF must not be deleted for reasons other than copyright violation.
- This image is widely used -- nine different WPs -- and it is up to the editors of those Wikis to decide whether or not to use the image. Commons is just a host and we deliberately do not opine on the accuracy of any description. While there are certainly limits to that -- we will not host a photograph of Tony Blair that is labeled as Queen Elizabeth -- you yourself say that you cannot be certain that this is not Pehr Loefling.
- You should, of course, add your comments above to the talk page of the image. You should also add {{Doubt}} to the image page. You may, of course, try to convince the editors of the nine WPs that they should not use this image. But, as long as it is in use, our policy is to keep it.
- Delete Image has no source, might still be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If we demand sources for every historical image, a lot of images would have to go on the basis that they could be recently created in the style of an old photo. The nature of this image implies that it is almost certainly PD-old. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am very grateful for your explanations because yes, I did not realize that copyright violation was virtually the *only* reason for deletion but thought that lack of source information was another such. Also, I fully understand and appreciate the collaborative nature of this resource and relying on rules rather than (difficult-to-value) expertise). Still, I find it very troubling that an image without any source or citation as backing can be picked up and used in so many versions of WP as in this case. And of course, from my perspective this *is* more or less the equivalent to labeling an image of Tony Blair with Queen Elizabeth, since it would be nothing short of a sensation if it turned out to be a portrait of Pehr Löfling. And believe me, no one (quite literally) would be happier than me if I turned out to be wrong in this case, i.e., if suddenly such a portrait has turned up via WP and Commons. In any case, again I am grateful for your thorough and swift response to my comments. This has been most instructive.80.216.132.109 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with your argument that, if there is evidence against the identification a claim of one user in favor of some false identification or hoax can not hold and can not be a reason for inclusion. The image must be removed from the articles in order to revert the possible hoax created here. If the image is removed from the article it must be renamed to what it shows: an unidentified person. Then, finaly, without any source information given and without any identification the image does not provide any educational use and is out of scope. The order of actions is unimportant, delete it and delinker will do the rest. Also in this light the delete argument by Pieter holds: image of unknown person created by unknown and taken from unknown source. It looks like an old portrait, but given that we dont even know who is shown we have no reason to believe that it is an old portrait. --Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- p.s.: the uplaoder is from pt.wp and added the file with this edit. The file is from his internet source, expedicionmadidi.com via archive.org. Maybe the publisher there can clarify the identification or origin of the portrait and we can restore the file then. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Martin, I often defer to your greater experience, but I am troubled by this one. Although in this particular case, I have little doubt that Professor Nyberg is exactly who he says, he is an IP editor who claims that the image is not correctly named. If we accept those claims, we are creating a precedent for any IP editor to come and tell us this or that about an image. Although, as I said, I don't doubt this one, I don't like being in the position of judging the trustworthiness of an unknown editor.
- I must admit though, that it's moot. Pieter's argument is correct. Unlikely as it may seem, from the evidence we have, it certainly could have been created ten years ago. Therefore, Delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I must admit though, that it's moot. Pieter's argument is correct. Unlikely as it may seem, from the evidence we have, it certainly could have been created ten years ago. Therefore,
- Thankyou for discussing this matter so thoroughly. I totally agree that you should not take one anonymous user's arguments (me) for granted over another just because he (I) claim to be an expert, and it was most reluctantly I even mentioned my name because the question "Says who" was asked the last time I tried to make the argument. Also, and *very* importantly, I am not in a definite way claiming this is not Pehr Löfling, I am just saying that it is an unidentified image from an unidentified source with a specific claim attached to it without substantiation. If this is cause for deletion from Commons it should reasonably be deleted, if only copyright violation counts as such cause you may disregard my nomination entirely. And once again, if the outcome of this should be that the original poster of the image provided a citation that shows it is a historical portrait of Löfling I would be very happy indeed. Regards, Kenneth Nyberg80.216.132.109 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I tracked back the uploaders source via the sources he used in the article to this page (via archive.org). It is used as a portrait (retrato) to illustrate an article written by Dr. Antonio González Bueno. Maybe you can contact him (google search for email), explain that (via Wikipedia) his article and the portrait used on it had an big impact on Löflings public appareance and that it would be very important to know where the portrait originaly comes from. Then we know if it is identified wrong or if it is just some Wikipedia user who invented the description of a "contemporary engraving" or if it demonstrably is a portrait of Löfling created posthumously (or very recently = possible copyright violation). --Martin H. (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks! This is exactly the source info I have been looking for and that, as far as I understand, is not given for the file itself but that you found in the Portuguese WP article on Löfling. I have now written Dr. González Bueno to ask about the image. It seems fairly certain the image has been taken from his web article, and that at least should be noted in the file info. I am deeply grateful for your help. /Kenneth 80.216.132.109 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I tracked back the uploaders source via the sources he used in the article to this page (via archive.org). It is used as a portrait (retrato) to illustrate an article written by Dr. Antonio González Bueno. Maybe you can contact him (google search for email), explain that (via Wikipedia) his article and the portrait used on it had an big impact on Löflings public appareance and that it would be very important to know where the portrait originaly comes from. Then we know if it is identified wrong or if it is just some Wikipedia user who invented the description of a "contemporary engraving" or if it demonstrably is a portrait of Löfling created posthumously (or very recently = possible copyright violation). --Martin H. (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It does not concern an exercise tool. Hexagon (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No usable information. — Jeff G. ツ 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploader says own work. But the image looks very similar to Eniro aerial photos at http://kartor.eniro.se/m/IhsJM /~ Ö 18:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not just very similar, exactly the same if you line them up just right, plus I doubt the uploader has his very own satellite. — Jeff G. ツ 04:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
PD-ineligible is applied, though its a photograph of a football stadium, which would be copyrighted. Acather96 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Although COM:FOP#Norway might protect the original photographer, it doesn't protect insufficient source and author information when using that original photographer's work. — Jeff G. ツ 05:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. There is insufficient source information on either version. As Jeff G. says, the problem is not the architect's copyright on the stadium, but the fact that neither photograph has enough source and author information. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
pic from google earth Sinopitt (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The name translates as "Yellow Tail Island 1". The description translates as "Yellow Tail through Google Earth satellite". Google images such as this one are copyrighted, in this case by Google, DigitalGlobe, and GeoEye. — Jeff G. ツ 05:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
At least one file is a fair use image as per uploader text, several images are not sourced, at least two images miss proper credit and backlinks, GFDL not possible, wrong CC license used, etc Denniss (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please specify which image is a fair use image as per uploader text and which two images miss proper credit and back links? I wish to rectify the errors and learn in this way. I know that 5 images are not showing, but I thought that since they were already on the Wikipedia they would automatically be discovered by Wikimedia. And as I understand CC 3.0 should have been the correct license. As I am a newbie, can you please specify what would be the correct license? BengaliHindu (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This kind of collage is a difficult project for a newbie and one that is not likely to be very useful -- it does not lay out well on WP pages and most editors would rather pick their own images than have you assemble a large group for them.
One problem, as noted by the nom, is that Fair Use is not acceptable on Commons, so File:Uttam Kumar.jpg cannot be hosted here.
File:Amartya Sen NIH.jpg may or not be PD -- it no longer appears on the source site and it could well be a non-free image. And so forth. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
pppp Hs.carolina (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid reason. — Jeff G. ツ 06:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
wrong file Chi2 (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why not rename it to File:Sophie Yau and Kevin Bourque perform at The Silver Bullet in Camden, London, England.jpg? — Jeff G. ツ 06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: file has been renamed; this is now a redirect. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
- File moved to File:Sophie Yau and Kevin Bourque during the launch of Some Great Union in The Sky at The Silver Bullet, Camden, London - 20100714.jpg
- File:Wikicommons.jpg deleted, redirect not needed.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo of who knows what. ZooFari 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - copyrighted logo of Helicol, Helicópteros Nacionales de Colombia per this article. — Jeff G. ツ 07:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. PD-textlogo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No license. Maybe PD-textlogo? ZooFari 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless there is clarification. — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. PD text logo -- just letters and a bang! Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused logo of non-notable organization. ZooFari 05:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ByteSource_Logo.png
very poor quality, not used on articles Majoran (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - The users who use it on their userpages seem to like it, why deny them the pleasure? — Jeff G. ツ 05:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. We do not delete images that are in use for quality issues. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
NB: this DR also concerns File:Naturist Volleyball 3.jpg and File:Naturist Volleyball 2.jpg.
High probability of copyvio. You can find the nominated picture and other pictures of the same girls here. The uploader has uploaded these 3 pictures only, which is very dubious. I tend to think it's vandalism. -- TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The higher quality versions of this set of images are probably copyrighted and only available to paid subscribers to x-nudism.com (US$29.95 minimum). File:Naturist Volleyball 3.jpg was discussed as a replacement for File:Naturista.jpg (in section w:Naturism#Gymnosophy_and_religious_nakedness) at w:Talk:Naturism#New_image 19-20 March 2010. — Jeff G. ツ 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Category:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 and its subcategorys should suffice Markscheider (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - "Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons. Usually, they are created to give a sample or overview of all the media on a given topic" per COM:G. — Jeff G. ツ 02:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Usually. But in this case? Structured and meaningful? Still, i can't see what this gallery does, what cannot achieved with sub-categories. --Markscheider (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The cat and sub cats contain about 200 images, on at least thirteen pages. The gallery gives us the opportunity to present a selection of the best of those in one place, in a specific order. It could, for example, give us a good image of each notable variation and of various details. It certainly needs work, but this is exactly the sort of image set that needs a gallery. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay then. --Markscheider (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The cat and sub cats contain about 200 images, on at least thirteen pages. The gallery gives us the opportunity to present a selection of the best of those in one place, in a specific order. It could, for example, give us a good image of each notable variation and of various details. It certainly needs work, but this is exactly the sort of image set that needs a gallery. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
(Changed from speedy deletion) by User: Toglenn 19:14, October 24, 2010 "Request to be deleted by Marcus Shirock"
ZooFari 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's historically in use on w:Marcus Shirock. I'm a touch confused why Shirock would want it deleted; it's an excellent picture, and he's an actor, not a field where you hide your face. The only thing that altering my opinion at all is the fact that User:Toglenn is one of more productive users and this is a one off request.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes. — Jeff G. ツ 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- DELETE This is a direct request by Shirock. For whatever reason, he wants it removed. His "reason" is irrelevant. Actors/Actress are VERY picky about pictures of themslves. No good can come from keeping this photo up. Refusing to delete an unwanted photo only creates resentment and BAD-Will (NOT Good-Will) between: (1) Wikipedia and the person who which the photo is of, (2) between Wikipedia and the uploader, and (3) between the person who the photo is of and the Uploader. Thats Three more good reasons to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 20:12, October 25, 2010 (UTC) (note that User:Toglenn is the uploader, speaking of himself in the third person in this unsigned comment.)
- Wikipedia strives to be a reliable and useful source of information. No reliable and useful source of information can censor true and useful information at the request of the subjects of the articles. Images are not the biggest issue, but deleting an image from an article hurts the article, and deleting a good image at the request of the pictured hurts our street cred.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Although for the reasons Prosfilaes cites, we do not usually take down images at the subject's request, User:Toglenn has uploaded around 400 images, so I would bend a little and take this down if either Toglenn or Shirock provides a properly licensed replacement of similar quality. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Unless he provides a better photo, we have no reason to delete this one. Okki (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- DELETE don't delete it is the easy way for inibite User:Toglenn to upload new photo Lillolollo (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's also an opened door so that all the personalities ask for the deletion of their photos. Okki (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I sent an email to Marcus Shirock's website asking for a new photograph, which would help clear the way for deletion per Jameslwoodward's suggestion. The reply I got back in full:
- Hi I just read the article below. I never wanted this photo deleted. I do not know why there is motion to delete this picture? I like it and want it up. please respond
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marcus_Shirock_2008.jpg
- Marcus Shirock
- <phone # redacted>
- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0794269/
Seems straight-forward to me... Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: I just traded emails with Toglenn about what I got from Marcus requesting the photo remain and he says he's withdrawing the DR. So I'm going to close it out. Tabercil (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator as original reason for deletion no longer exists. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
1942 image with EXIF indicating a scanner, thus unlikely to be own work as asserted. OTRS confirmation required, or proper source information to determine if image is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Article de:Marika Rökk has this file captioned "Verletzter Soldat mit Marika Rökk-Starporträt über seinem Bett" or in English "Injured soldier with Marika Rokk Star-portrait above his bed". It appears to be a 2009 scan of a 1942 posed color photo which includes a 1942 or earlier black and white publicity photo of Marika Rökk by Film Foto Verlag which is also reproduced at http://www.virtual-history.com/movie/cigcard/67/large/aag.jpg and http://www.virtual-history.com/movie/moviecard/card8211. It has not even been 70 years since the color photo was allegedly taken, and the photographer of the black and white photo, if known, probably did not die before 1940 (70 years ago). — Jeff G. ツ 23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This picture was taken by 35MM color picture in 1942 in a north African hospital, for an Africa-corps wounded man. with marika Rokk CALANDER above his hospital bed. The black edges in no a scan it is the developed 35MM from negative. I released this picture from my own collection. (please reconsider the Deletion Request) HEYDRICH10
- Thanks for confirming that you are the photographer of the image. However, one problem is that the black and white photograph of Marika Rökk that is shown in your photograph may be copyrighted. We will need evidence to show that the black and white photograph is already in the public domain, otherwise I'm afraid we cannot keep your photograph in the Commons. Sorry about that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you really take the photo yourself? --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not the own work by the uploader. No permission given that would allow the uploader to publish this file under a free licence. --High Contrast (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not used in any page (Requested by uploader) --Gasteren (talk · contribs) --Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I am torn between "let this spammer SPA have his way" and "contributions to the Public Domain are irrevokable, and it's a nice picture in a bunch of cats, despite the date discrepancy (it was taken over 4 years ago)". — Jeff G. ツ 02:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete.
Question is there a Commons equivalent to Wikipedia's db-g7 ("the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith")? Athaenara (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I question the faith of the uploader. — Jeff G. ツ 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of that aspect, my question is about how Commons handles requests for deletion by the sole author "of the only substantial content" as in this case. Athaenara (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I question the faith of the uploader. — Jeff G. ツ 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep WP's db-g7 is not parallel -- it is used there for administrative deletions, for example, a misspelled page name. We have the same policy for similar cases. Our general policy when an uploader asks for deletion of a file is to refuse -- our licenses are irrevocable. We do exercise some flexibility, however. I am inclined to keep this for the reasons given by Jeff G., but I don't feel strongly. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are many applications of Db-g7 on Wikipedia, as for example when a new page has been tagged for deletion for other reasons (advertising, vandalism, lack of notability, etc.) and the author (often a first-time user) then blanks the page. Athaenara (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete private picture out of scope --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Up_Liverpool_Express_climbing_Madeley_Bank,_LMS_Royal_Scot_class,_6109_Royal_Engineer_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information provided to substantiate PD claim - When did F.R.Hebron die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I have no idea who Hebron was or when he died. We're thus restricted to the publication date for such an effectively anonymous work, which is 82 years ago and so not a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- As you've seen fit to dispute my research elsewhere, I'd point out that (from my research at the time of uploading this) F.R. Hebron was a fairly widely published railway photographer active in the 1920s, with work appearing in the Railway Magazine and Meccano Magazine, probably other places too. However I still don't know his dates, or work after this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't know the author does not make the work anonymous. Author can be identified - thus we need year of death. It is very likely that he has not been dead for more than 70 years. --|EPO| da: 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We know the photographer on this one -- so we can't use {{PD-UK-unknown}} and it's a fair bet that a man who was an active photographer in the mid 20's was still living in 1940. Unless we can find an earlier death date, I'm afraid this is a goner. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't know the author does not make the work anonymous. Author can be identified - thus we need year of death. It is very likely that he has not been dead for more than 70 years. --|EPO| da: 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1072765669&searchurl=an%3DHebron%26ph%3D2%26sortby%3D3 seems to be published by the photographer 1948, still couldn't find the year he died --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was published by Ian Allan, and its publication date is no indication as to the lifespan of the photographer! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- True, but the third hit on Hebron in this long list gives us a 1949 photograph.] Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information provided to substantiate PD claim, Who are Loco Publshing Co and did they renew? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This is a work by an effectively anonymous photographer, with a publication date of 82 years ago. That just isn't a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- This image is of a US loco, In the absence of other information, the concern is that given the credit it's an image with a corporate copyright.
Three situations exist -
- Pre 1978, No notice of copyright
- Pre 1978. With notice, but not renewed..
- Originally published with notice, Copyright renewed, (which would make it copyright until 2023 at the earliest)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- DeleteThis is almost certainly the original Alco builder's photograph from 1926 (I have a copy in a book, and the track in the foreground is distinctive). The Alco photos are owned by the NRHS, which certainly believes that it owns the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information to substantiate PD claim , When did the photogrpaher die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep In the absence of further information on the photographer, this is effectively a work by an anonymous photographer, with a publication date of 82 years ago. That just isn't a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, W.H.C. Kelland, the photographer credited here, was alive in 1954, as seen in the credit about 3/4 of the way down this page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Twentieth_Century_Limited,_steam-hauled_from_New_York_to_Chicago_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information to substaniate PD claim, Did the photogrpaher renew copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In the absence of further biography, this is a work by an effectively anonymous photographer, with a publication date of 82 years ago. That just isn't a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Horace William Pontin, 1893 - 1973
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Twentieth_Century_Limited,_electrically-hauled_leaving_New_York_for_Chicago_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Insuffcient information to substaniate PD claim, Did NY Central Lines renew copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a work by an effectively anonymous photographer, with a publication date of 82 years ago. That just isn't a problem for us.
- I'm also far from happy that the nominator has both tagged the category (i.e. the book, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Scans from 'CJ Allen, Steel Highway', 1928) and a large number of individual images, all for an issue that should be discussed centrally in relation to the category. This just creates work for people (i.e. image uploaders) who have far better things to be doing than wikilawyering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- This image is of a US origin , In the absence of other information, the concern is that given the credit it's an image with a corporate copyright. Three situations exist -
1. Pre 1978, No notice of copyright 2. Pre 1978. With notice, but not renewed.. 3. Originally published with notice, Copyright renewed, (which would make it copyright until 2023 at the earliest)
- KeepSfan00 IMG assumes, without any evidence, that this image was first published in the United States. As far as we do know, it was first published in the cited book, in the UK. We do not know who the photographer was. This is not a case where a photographic print is in existence and we simply don't know what is on the back of the print -- this is an image from a book published 82 years ago with no credit to the photographer. The image is, therefore, {{PD-UK-unknown}}. It might be in copyright in the US, but only if it were first published in the USA and the New York Central renewed the copyright in the early fifties. That seems very unlikely, as by then this was of only historical interest as the rolling stock used was long out of service on the 20th Century Limited. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The file seems to be useless. I regret I uploaded it. Conty (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a type of "personal research", and such things do not belong to Wiki. Conty (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikimedia Commons does not have a "no original research" policy as such. If the image is blatantly factually incorrect, that would be another thing... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have this file removed. Some of the details given are not correct (for instance, I now know that Tyrannosaururs were not alone in having the 3rd metacarpal separate from the 2nd metacarpal) Conty (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. File is in use. I am also not seeing what part of the image contradicts your statement. If there are errors, replacing the current file (which still has much educational utility) with a corrected version seems preferable. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The use of this image can be discussed on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
the noise in the end is too loud, there should be made a new audio file Vearthy (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - feel free to replace the file by a better version - Jcb (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Angela Lima
[edit]- File:Suel Fernandez und Skeeter Rabitt.jpg
- File:Suel Fernandez teaching.jpg
- File:Suel Fernandez and Mister Wiggles.jpg
- File:Suel Fernandez und Brian Green.jpg
- File:Suel Fernandez Walid and Shabba-Doo.jpg
- File:Suel Fernandez and Boogaloo Sam.jpg
- File:Suel neu.jpg
- File:Suel und popin pete.jpg
I frankly do not believe all those images are actually the uploader's own work, they're too small. Another image uploaded by this user at the same time and depicting the same person, File:Suel dreads.jpg, was already speedily deleted as a copyvio. User talk:Angela Lima has notifications of this deletion and of uncategorized images, but the user did not respond. I also asked de:Benutzer:Angela Lima, who created an article on de:Suel Fernandez at the same time the images were uploaded, for a comment, but did not get a response. --Rosenzweig δ 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)