Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
to overexposed 76.208.162.37 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept, dubious nomination, photo in use in multiple projects; the photographic quality is more than adequate. Infrogmation (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion by Tbiw: doesn't look like Lucy pinder De728631 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved from COM:UDR: De728631 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep This is an old file, so it should be given more room. Sometimes some images do look different. I do think that it is of a strange resolution, and that is strike against it, but at this moment we have little reason to delete. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- Keep This is clearly Lucy Pinder as this is the look that Lucy Pinder had in the middle 2000´s, this is in heavy use and besides and mainly this file has OTRS clearence and the source is pretty clear as Neon Models. Tm (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Tm and Gone Postal. --Strakhov (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No evidence to support claim that image is ineligible for copyright. Image was taken from blog Gr1st (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, simple copyright violation with obviously false license claim. Infrogmation (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Web sourced - Chinese language supporters are required to explain the details provided on right top corner of the image Kalarickan | My Interactions 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Most likely it is copyrighted. Masur (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a studio shot; how did the uploader come to take this picture? Can we be sure the uploader is the photographer? The uploader has no other contributions to Commons. Powers (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yes, the image is of professional quality. Original professional quality photographs of notable people and things are very welcome at Commons. What is the reason to think uploader is not the photographer? Infrogmation (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not professional quality; it's a studio shot. It's a lot harder to get someone in a studio or similar environment then it is to take a professional quality picture of nature or a celebrity on the street. In practice, most studio shots uploaded to Commons are copyvios, and it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt without evidence that leads us to trust the contributor, even if there's not strong evidence it's a copyvio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - similar to this, but not identical; OTRS permission from www.TyrusFlynn.com would be desirable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The image was indeed taken by me, as was the similar one linked to on Flickr. It was done as part of a group steampunk studio photo shoot. That's worth mentioning because there are some other similar images on the net taken by the other photographers present at the same time. I was asked to make the image available by Mr. Falksen (the subject) so it may be used on his wikipedia page. I will put in an OTRS for the image. Will that be sufficent, or would something else be helpful? I'd be happy to post something either at tyrusflynn.com or on my flickr page. --TyrusFlynn (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS permsssion received from @tyrusflynn.com and added to image. Captain-tucker (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope --George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Orphan undescribed image of unidentified people in unidentified context; no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope ( I cannot find any truth behind it with a value for the commons) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photo of unidentified people in unidentified context, uncategorized for 3 years, orphan, no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope --George Chernilevsky talk 10:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
there's no evidence that this 1968 film was legitimately released to the CC; it's in the Community Video section of the Internet Archive, and I'm inclined to believe it was uploaded there without permission Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Here's the source; if you can find some evidence that whoever uploaded it there holds the copyright, that would be wonderful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -neither http://www.ideale-audience.com/ nor http://www.imgartists.com/ seem particularly dedicated to free art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
unused diagram with little content - seems to be from a small private IT-project PILIB - out of scope, no realistic use Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
the same applies to the other files of this user:
- File:PILIBZonedetextescroll.png
- File:PILIBZonedetexte.png
- File:PILIBBouton.png
- File:PILIBWindow.png
- File:PILIBExample.png - unused, uncategorized and forgotten.... Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned image with no evidence of consent of subject. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image is no longer orphaned (person has an article about them in en:Wikipedia; there was a typo in the file link which I fixed). Toastmasters International is certainly a notable organization, with articles about them in some 19 Wikipedia languages. I fail to see any issue regarding "consent of subject". Infrogmation (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In this image Hahn resembles File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-46019-0001, Otto Hahn.jpg which is from 1954. Hahn died in 1968. I doubt this is "own work". Hekerui (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - very doubtful indeed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture/model. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no, no, no. Nonsense. It is an image like a thousand other museum images. I am the holder of the copyright from this photo; see german Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache und Schutzrechtsberühmung. --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that this is your goto answer, but freedom of panorama only applies to public places, and museums are often private (there could be some intricacies of the law I'm missing though, my German isn't that good). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, when you make in german (in most?) museums a photo, the holder of the copyright from the photo is not the museum, but the photographer. So we can use it. In Commons are thousands of photos from museums. My permission is perfectly acceptable. --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that this is your goto answer, but freedom of panorama only applies to public places, and museums are often private (there could be some intricacies of the law I'm missing though, my German isn't that good). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Sure, the holder of the copyright on the photo is you, and the museum plays no part. But the holder of the copyright on the sculpture is George Lucas and friends, and you're infringing on that copyright by distributing the photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Unused, and superseded by File:Constables_The_Hay_Wain.png Ham (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - there are copyright claims on photos made by the National Gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Just completing an incomplete Deletion Request. Quote:
- I´m not author. (User:Petr Tomasovsky 2010-11-03T11:01:38)
End of Quote. --JuTa (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The PDF says it is copyrighted, besides I doubt the educational value. Avron (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Contains mistakes, title unfit for updates, now replacement ready: File:KTX-frequency.gif Rontombontom (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - replaced, not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not used - no idea what sort of logo this may be, I couldn't find any information Traumrune (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unknown logo --George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted GasTerra logo included. (User:ZanderZ 2010-11-03T10:23:18)
- Keep - cannot see anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted Logo- Copyright © 2010 PAF, Air War College. Kalarickan | My Interactions 17:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution and lack of metadata indicate that original uploader is not the author of this photograph. --Karppinen (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Why did you change the description year of the photo? Infrogmation (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Old open deletion request relisted for additional comments. Infrogmation (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect file: Flag of New England.png 203.211.70.193 06:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as {{duplicate|Flag-national.png}}. — Jeff G. ツ 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:Flag-national.png
out of scope: Fanart with no use, bad quality. --Don-kun (Diskussion) 10:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Don-kun (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 11:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Useless image, nearly no global usage, only user page in his "gallery" (not sharp, moved). See also the duplicate Savh, Any questions? 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The orphan duplicate speedy deleted. Image is certainly very blurry, and I see no compensating importance. Infrogmation (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Project scope. Blurry image, out of focus not worth for illustration. -- Magister Mathematicae 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Web resolution, uploader dont have a good history of upload related to film industry (Suspected that this image is copied from web or cropped from a group photo available on web) Kalarickan | My Interactions 09:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Pitija
[edit]- File:MonitorZSA2007.jpg
- File:PN-Razkrojuniverze-Kramberger-23-07-2010.jpg
- File:PN-Razkrojuniverze2-Kramberger-23-07-2010.jpg
- File:Razstava AFERA DREYFUS 1894-1906 - Plakat - FIN.pdf
- File:Razstava AFERA DREYFUS 1894-1906 - Zlozenka-Vabilo - FIN-00001.JPG
- File:Razstava AFERA DREYFUS 1894-1906 - Zlozenka-Vabilo - FIN-00002.JPG
- File:17. Karikature v casu afere.JPG
- File:13. Antisemitizem v medijih - Slo & Ts.pdf
- File:13. Antisemitizem v medijih - Slo & Ts.JPG
- File:PB&LW-2006.jpg
- File:Bourdieu & Wacquant2.jpg
- File:Gegenstroemung-Protitok (april 2002).jpg
- File:5 livre de poesie - MOBILISATIONS - 2004 - 300 dpi.jpg
- File:Intervju - Nedelo - 2004.jpg
- File:Sanomat-F-2007.jpg
- File:DOTIK Udine - maj 2005 - 300.jpg
- File:Ma tr. de Michele Obit - 2001.jpg
- File:Juarroz.jpg
- File:Ma tr. de Lucy Coats - 2004.JPG
- File:Vsakdanji pogovori - Taja Kramberger - OVITEK.pdf
- File:CA-1.jpg
- File:TajainBraco.jpg
- File:Taja K. - Vecer - intervju.pdf
- File:Kramberger.Id 51947.jpg
- File:Uvodnik - KL - 2003 - 1.jpg
- File:Uvodnik - KL - 2003 - 2.jpg
Files are non-free covers and newspaper article scans. Probably uploaded in good faith to illustrate Taja Kramberger's work, but upload of non-free content is not allowed by Commons policy and the number of files is excessive even for fair-use. — Yerpo Eh? 09:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Move to local wiki, if it have some use..?? or delete it..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Comment As I said, the amount is excessive for fair-use, and there is a portrait of the author clearly labeled as "own work" - File:Taja Kramberger2008.jpg. All the other images are therefore useless for the purpose of illustrating. — Yerpo Eh? 08:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
personal information Jwolonick (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted in its source country. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Modern architecture is protected by IP laws in Italy, where the photo was taken TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - not much architecture to see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- What does that means? --TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused image with controversial and possibly inaccurate name and disputed description. Per the talk page discussion, this image should at the very least be renamed.
By the way, commons makes it way to complicated to nominate images for deletion. Sven Manguard (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If there is dispute about what the image shows, add information to the description. If the name is inaccurate, suggest a more appropriate name and the image can be renamed. I note there is no talk page for the image. If there is relevant discussion about the image somewhere else, please provide a link to it, thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- At the very least the image should be renamed to remove "dictator", and the original information description be removed as it incorrectly states that " Ernesto Guevara in shown in the back tightening the victim's hands", when that is not him in the picture. Redthoreau Redthoreau (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - all issues can be resolved without deletion procedure - Jcb (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
this page is obsolete and has been replaced with updated material (which includes it) in the same category Zabek (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
no evidence of sources, or possible date, or anything. I doubt that this is really PD-old. Also, how can we check who is this, and where? Propose deletion. WhiteWriter speaks 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - uploader didn't get the opportunity to respond to the nomination, because nominator failed to drop a notification at his talk page - Jcb (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not the reason for keeping bad image. Uploader was notified, on the notification red link ocean... --WhiteWriter speaks 20:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of sources, or possible date, or anything. I doubt that this is really PD-old. Also, how can we check who is this, and where? Propose deletion. WhiteWriter speaks 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - uploader didn't get the opportunity to respond to the nomination, because nominator failed to drop a notification at his talk page - Jcb (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not the reason for keeping bad image. Uploader was notified, on the notification red link ocean... --WhiteWriter speaks 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Trademarked logo; possible copyright of http://www.dreheadphones.org/includes/templates/classic/images/logo.gif with no evidence of permission. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
the article about him in the spanish WP was deleted - no notability for the commons - out of scope (though a professor in Lima) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
? - the article about him was deleted - is a missing notability no reason for a deletion? If the spanish WP deletes it, he will not be notable for other wikipedias. Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep indeed, no reason for deletion. Commons is not a subdivision of Wikipedia, and should not react every DR decision made on a local project. Commons has its own standards for inclusion, quite different from inclusion standards of the various local projects, so decisions of the projects don't mean very much. Trycatch (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment in parts I understand the point - but this will result in the collection of more and more junk, that cannot be used realistically. It is a mistake to take part in this. See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Telosys_Actions.PNG - Much luck. Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- "but this will result in the collection of more and more junk." -- I have no idea why a photo of a university professor with numerous publications is "junk". Because there is no article about him in Wikipedia? Why we should care about it? Trycatch (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- how big is the probability that there will be an article about him in other projects? Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is a philosopher, he is known internationally it seems. And a photo is good to have, also for other things than wikipedia biographies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not find even a homepage, only this interview: http://www.laondadigital.com/laonda/LaOnda/Entrevistas/Prof%20Carlos%20Caorsi.htm - the other file of the user who uploaded it (maybe the son of caorsi) is "private unused" Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not all people make fancy home pages... this is his university department. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not find even a homepage, only this interview: http://www.laondadigital.com/laonda/LaOnda/Entrevistas/Prof%20Carlos%20Caorsi.htm - the other file of the user who uploaded it (maybe the son of caorsi) is "private unused" Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No proof that uploader holds the copyright to this photo which appears to be taken from http://www.similinton.com/images_page/Simi_photo2.jpg Whpq (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of permission, would need OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
File from 1998. Uploaded to Flickr in 13 Oct. 2010 and to Commons in 22 Oct. 2010. The only file is the only file of the Flickr user. Can be founded also her. ~ Geagea (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted GasTerra logo included (User:ZanderZ 2010-11-03T10:25:20)
Kept. - resolution too low to make that a serious issue - Jcb (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
