Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/21
 |
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}
![129 File_talk:Mosin_Nagant_Model_1891_"Dragoon"_(Sketch).jpg](#File_talk:Mosin_Nagant_Model_1891_"Dragoon"_(Sketch).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Per nudity: "Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects may be deleted." This image is not being used, is of low quality, and is easily replacable. Commons is not a repository for family photos. Sven Manguard (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, watermarked, poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Per nudity: "Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects may be deleted." This is a low quality image and can easily be replacable. Plenty of other images can be used to illustrate nudity, if that is the intent. The same goes for illustrations of the location. Sven Manguard (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Historical photo. Day nursery in Berlin 1958 George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
not appropriate image 2A06:C701:9819:5A00:440C:7BED:BA88:78C9 12:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep - yet another stupid DR-reason by Reinhardhauke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Nothing out of scope about it at all Herby talk thyme 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Junk Herby talk thyme 16:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Herby talk thyme 16:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The image description page states: Image found here. See also this ticket, in which someone fails to clear up the copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Just use {{copyvio|source=http://www.danpfdusche.de/images/d12c1d01b2e8fbbd84283189f14f0a32.jpg}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I will keep this template in mind. Jcb (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The image description page states: Image found here. See also this ticket, in which someone fails to clear up the copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.danpfdusche.de/images/d12c1d01b2e8fbbd84283189f14f0a32.jpg
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. private photo George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertised logo George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Poor quality, small, private photo George Chernilevsky talk 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope. Promotional logo, used only in Facebook George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. private photo. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope private photo George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, private photo George Chernilevsky talk 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unusable poor quality private photo George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
BACKGROUND Abomr65 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: duplicate of File:Al-khteeb.jpg. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Scale-down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: nice picture, but low resolution image of a non-notable person which is unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal photograph of non-notable person. Nonsense filename and description. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal image that has been edited to superimpose a snooker ball over the person's belt buckle (?!). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. Self-portrait, unusedGeorge Chernilevsky talk 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused promotional image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertisement George Chernilevsky talk 14:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The same picture has been uploaded earlier Ezralalsim10 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't see any duplicate image in the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Lamlira Lungphun.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- strong opppose; this file is used in an article in the german wikipedia. it represents an artwork of one participant of a german cultural festival. de:GrenzGebietRuhr please be more careful with your deletion request. you could have checked this before. thanks and regards --Catfisheye (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Found in Flickr as CC-BY-NC-SA. — Tanvir • 11:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason to doubt that uploader is the owner of the Flickr account. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I uploaded this picture and also the flickr account is mine. Whats the problem about this photo? Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The non-commercial condition on Flickr; not a real problem, but bringing the licence on flickr in agreement with the one here would solve all problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This image was first published on Flikcr, and there, the license is non-commercial. If the author is allowed to release it under CC-BY/CC-BY-SA license, I suggest change the Flickr license to CC-BY-2.0/CC-BY-SA-2.0 and same here, after reviewing the license, all problems will be solved. — Tanvir • 03:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know how to to that. If theres problem go and delete the picture. I lose nothing but Wikipedia loses an image. Bye bye. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- This image was first published on Flikcr, and there, the license is non-commercial. If the author is allowed to release it under CC-BY/CC-BY-SA license, I suggest change the Flickr license to CC-BY-2.0/CC-BY-SA-2.0 and same here, after reviewing the license, all problems will be solved. — Tanvir • 03:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- The non-commercial condition on Flickr; not a real problem, but bringing the licence on flickr in agreement with the one here would solve all problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- For your convince pls check the title of the original image on flickr. Just those licence numbers and codes are too problematic for me. Mulazimoglu (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason not to assume good faith here. The metadata indicates that this image was taken with a Canon PowerShot S5 IS. That is the same camera that Ozgurmulazimoglu uses for his/her uploads. But, "Hello Pieter Kuiper" added to the Flickr page just now is convincing.[1] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- For your convince pls check the title of the original image on flickr. Just those licence numbers and codes are too problematic for me. Mulazimoglu (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I am convinced :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Flicr and Commons user is same person George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
this image was taken by me years ago. the woman in the photo told me she would be happy if her image was not used in commons and also wikipedias. pls delete from commons. thank you.95.10.65.208 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Ezarateesteban 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I only fix the wrong DR created by the IP Ezarateesteban 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- this person is my aunt, it was shot at her home and she does not want her image to be used in wikipedia projects. pls delete it as soon as possible. thank you.95.10.65.208 19:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- DeleteMulazimoglu (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as a courtesy, but in the future, please, try to clarify things like this sooner than years after the image has been here! People come to rely on the availability of an image like this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful as it is taken in a private place without evidence of permission to publish (with a free license). (If this DR is not successful, the subject can contact as advised at Commons:Contact_us/Problems/en#Images of yourself or the designated agent directly. But state it boldly. If you said the subject is willing to publish it in other places and only unwilling to Wikimedia uses, chances that your request is rejected.) Jee 06:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As well as Commons policies, if taken in a non-public location and the subject claims to never have given consent to publication, then Article 20 of the Turkish Constitution seems to apply, along with Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code. Article 20 states that "every person has the right to confidentiality and personal privacy and these rights are untouchable". I have not attempted to interpret Turkish legislation before, however these seems to follow a pattern of the right of the individual to not have their private life invaded, that we see in many other countries. Refer to http://www.adlawinternational.com/articles/2009/data-protection-privacy-turkey.aspx. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not only wikimedia projects. she told me she does not want her image be used anywhere. i also made the flickr image private. thank you. Mulazimoglu (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can we be quick about this deletion? Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would not object to speeding this up. While our rules demand this DR to be open for a certain time, to allow other contributors to voice their opinion the outcome of this seems rather predictable. --Dschwen (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It has copyright protection also. [2] Pls delete the picture as soon as possible. Mulazimoglu (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please stay calm. You already proved in the above DR as you and the Flickr user are same person. So the license you had give here is valid as a multi-license. But still eligible for deletion as people commented above. Jee 02:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as a courtesy as well as because the picture appears to have been taken in a non-public location without evidence of permission to publish it. odder (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It was a mistake in my upload, I clicked on a personal file within my computer to upload instead of the intended image. How do I delete this image? --E.herbert (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Outside scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 06:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - and a faked flickr source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: uploader's request
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - how can you have an opinion about this within one minute? Please stop. And see ru:Сучкова, Ната. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
mistake in the footprints, as the author noted himself, offering a new drawing Auguste Bolte (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Haunches-in.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
mistake in the footprints, as the author noted himself, offering a new drawing Auguste Bolte (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Haunches-in.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal picture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader confirmed that image no longer used. --Túrelio (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: This is Teo Ser Luck, a Member of the Parliament of Singapore and Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
no source, no description, violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Also out of focus. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
indistinct image that is no education value (converting from rejected speedy) — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Besides being too dark, it's totally unclear what is shown in this image and why it might be of any use. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete.--Aylaross (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Logo consists of numerous photographs, the copyright statuses of which are unknown. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: PD licence clearly wrong, size too small for any practical use. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unusable too small also probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 10:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: edited photograph with a nonsense description that does not indicate its significance. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused family tree diagram. If it is relevant for a project, it should be rendered in wikitext and not as a graphic. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. A part of Uploader's family tree. Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Article about this person was deleted in EnWiki too George Chernilevsky talk 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom also poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 11:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope, uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work". All other work of this user is drawings. The picture can be found elsewhere on the web, for example http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html which gives DPA as the source). It seems very unlikely that a Wikipedia user who never before posted any photograph but several drawings suddenly would be the copyright holder of a > 12 years old press photograph. Andre Engels (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Other uploads by this user (and by user Ivanino - same person?) cannot be "own works" either. Actual sources are not mentioned. Bogus licences. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused image of non-notable band. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom also poor illumination George Chernilevsky talk 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient evidence to show that uploader authorized to license image to the Commons. Logo too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Logo is of poor resolution and unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient evidence to show that uploader authorized to license image to the Commons. Logo too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Logo is of poor resolution and unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope and unused since may 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep w:Four Color Films seems to be notable. Trycatch (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: edited photograph with a description that does not indicate its significance. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by ThaiFutsal (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work:small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - a rubber hand for fans in some team sport - probably COM:DW, but not obviously out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)- Delete In scope, but copyrighted sculpture and label.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rh_DemoProductImage.jpg
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the obvious reason to delete is that this is a copyright violation, but it should be equally obvious for anybody who looked at the image that photos of this person are not out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality image. No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use --George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use on the Chinese Wikipedia as part of a series of pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. ZooFari 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: rather artistic photograph, but not terribly useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "out of scope" is not the same as "it takes Reinhardhauke more than a minute to understand what it is". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Question What exactly is out of scope about this image? --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. in scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - works of art are in scope... per COM:FOP#Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep public statuary is in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a company making a nature film. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused album cover or logo. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
picture useless without description 78.55.166.169 17:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, does not fall into Commons scope. Missvain (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - yes, it's out of scope. --Jcornelius (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - illustrates theories of education. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, kept, for illustrating reasons.. --Jcornelius (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Incomplete DR by Reinhardhauke for "out of scope", technically completed by me. Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, rather useless and potentially damaging to the depicted people. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted out of scope. --Jcornelius (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Not PD until 2012. Can possibly be uploaded to en.wiki under PD-US-1923 94.193.242.248 01:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is already locally uploaded there and this version isn't used anywhere. --94.193.242.248 01:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence given that could prove why this file can be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license High Contrast (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no real source, no evidence for the 1939 date. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
already uploaded in flickr.com Ezralalsim10 (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: no reason to delete the image from the Commons just because it has also been uploaded to Flickr. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep not valid deletion reason. MKFI (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
already uploaded in flickr.com Ezralalsim10 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: no reason to delete the image from the Commons just because it has also been uploaded to Flickr. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep not valid deletion reason. MKFI (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - another stupid DR by Reinhardhauke; please stop. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral -- Дар Ветер (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Useful picture George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - was tagged for "no permission" since November 3 - no need for a DR with a reason that does not really apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not out of scope but definitely a copyright violation and can be speedied --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Reinhardhauke's motivation has no meaning as usual, but this lacks evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no own work claim in any way of form. Trycatch (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Reinhardhauke's DRs are as stupid as those of a bot, but this photo has no evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Christmas in Peru. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - can illutrate Christianity in Peru. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - why should only the US military be in scope? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is it bad that my immediate response was to quote lines from Denis Leary's "Asshole"? Probably.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Depictions of uniforms from notable organizations are in scope. It'd be nice to say that we have better, but there's no evidence of that at hand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - one of the funnier Category:Stick figures. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Photo of a medical facility - buildings are in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence that uploader authorized to license image, and logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Logo is unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. Also probably a non-free toy. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely non-free toy. Trycatch (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - heraldry sometimes seems what Commons is most about, so this obviously in scope, stupid DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Not really educational, low quality and difficult to understand what is represented Broc (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Read the description and be educated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. This is a collage of two images. The uploader claims "own work", which means that he or she must have created both images and then the collage. The left hand image is unreadable. The right hand is of very low quality, even given the small size.
This is simply too small to be of any educational use. The uploader might create a new version, with both halves ten times (or more) this size.
There is also the question of whether this is a useful collage. While I understand what it is, I do not understand where it might be useful.
Therefore, I conclude that it is out of scope both because it is too small and because it is not useful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sticker is a derivative work of a news agency photo, therefore copyrighted. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
image of no educational value; converting from speedy to {{Delete}} — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Might be useful, if technically better. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: also unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - was tagged for "no permission" since November 6 - no need for a DR with a reason that does not really apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can figure out what the picture (which seems rather interesting) is of. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused image of non-notable band. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient description to establish relevance of image, so not useful for any project. Image is unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient description, so image not useful for any project. Unused. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free video screen Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
picture useless without description, poor quality 78.55.166.169 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, poor quality and has been awaiting more information for quite sometime. Missvain (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
picture useless without sufficient description 78.55.166.169 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a private image that would make it fall out of Scope. I'm also not sure how this would provide anything educational to the community, even if it's a pleasant image. Missvain (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
picture useless without description 78.55.166.169 18:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Col plasmids (like ColE1) should contain Col-genes, not ApR or TcR; source? Yikrazuul (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Info File is currently in use. --Leyo 09:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)- I know, but nevertheless, it is wrong, does not exist in that form (The col proteins of E. coli are encoded by proteins such as Col E1 as can been seen in figure 1-7. -> nop). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- That may be, but our policy is not to delete files that are in use for content reasons. You can tag it with {{Disputed diagram}} or another "Disputed" template and, perhaps, discuss removing it from the page it is use on at that page's talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File is incorrect, of poor quality and not anymore in use (no objection after removal from article). Leyo 09:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- File:Modell Marktkirche Hannover 1945 DSCF7986.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW. An awefully long licence for the photo, but not a word about the name of the artist. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep 1. Googlehit #10 (first after all those wiki hits) had a nice description with all necessary information, and more. 2. FOP, see File:Scale Model of Lüneburg in front of STadtinformation Blindenschrift.jpg -- smial (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Pieter is just disrupting to illustrate a point. The model is located on an public place in the city without naming it's artists, but thanks to Smial: he inserted the name. --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Hannover model is inside, according to http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfalori/378413979/ - COM:FOP#Germany is only for what one can see from the street. I find also the application to the Lüneburg bronze model questionable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Darling, the Hannover model is in a public building and falls thus under German FOP and additionally we had there a guiding tour specially for Wikipedia photographers. But feel free to open a DR on it to further illustrate your point. Please then do it as well for other pics from inside this building: Category:Neues_Rathaus_(Hannover). If you like it I will go and search more similar categories for your DRs. --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- (BK) :::What exactly is questionable about FOP with a sculpture that is located in front of a building at a public place in Germany? No roof, no walls, no fences around, and a bus stop near by. Unfortunately google maps has very low resolution in Lüneburg, so you cannot find it there. @Martina do you remember the exact location and direction of view? Coordinates should be added. -- smial (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added them. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Danke :-) --smial (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added them. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Hannover model is inside, according to http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfalori/378413979/ - COM:FOP#Germany is only for what one can see from the street. I find also the application to the Lüneburg bronze model questionable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Pieter really tagged the second image and redirected it to this DR. To this image see my comment above. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep wie heißt BNS auf Commonsianisch? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a correct version is here. BQ17 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be a news agency photo - high quality, low resolution, missing information and obviously incorrect date Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. In a visual search of 11 Google image pages I didn't find this image (except on wp pages). Eventually others may be more successful. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - may be captured from tv - Jcb (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:SkinWear
[edit]- File:SkinWear icon.png
- File:SkinWear vs. Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizer.jpg
- File:SkinWear vs. Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizers.png
Deleted as Blatant advertising at wikipedia--78.55.105.95 06:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertisement George Chernilevsky talk 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The 1899 date claimed seems unlikely given the modern logo and code Man vyi (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - so what if it was republished? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
stolen from a book 92.225.211.228 08:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not know about this one. Certainly, this must have been uploader's source. It says that the photo is from 1912 - uploader wrote 1935. And ascribed it to some invented relative that died 1941. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User is blocked. Makes Pieters nomination sound very convincing. MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
already uploaded in flickr.com Ezralalsim10 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep: no reason why the image should be deleted from the Commons just because it has also been uploaded to Flickr. However, the image is slightly defective – the bottom of the image requires cropping to remove the data error. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No evidence given that could prove why this file can be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the original is unlikely to be from before 1942, when Gareis became commander for Döttinger's army unit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a penis surgeon, put him in category:Human penis? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - copyvio - Jcb (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: in use at User:Nosshead. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete User:Nosshead is deleted now as blatant spam by a spam-only account. Wknight94 talk 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused personal photograph. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
useless personal image Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - election portraits of politicians are in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete bogus reason (as usual), it's just a higher resolution of File:RodolfoHC.jpg (in use). But this kind of pictures clearly needs an OTRS permission. Google translates the source as "This image was taken specifically for the campaign of Rudolph Higareda" and the author is Rudolph Higareda himself. I.e. we don't even have a valid own work claim for this picture. I've also added File:RodolfoHC.jpg to this request. Trycatch (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - per Trycatch - Jcb (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
speedydelete reverted to deletion request for discussion. An artist may upload its work, license is OKE, no reason to delete. Havang(nl) (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
-2010-11-21T12:02:00.000Z-File:Zbigniew_Wąsiel_-_Tors_I.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: appears to have been uploaded by sculptor. OTRS confirmation would be desirable, but I am prepared to assume good faith. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unless background advertisement removed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The background advertisement (three years old also; only partly readable) is useless. Not a reason for deletion. Julo (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question Is it permanently installed? Masur (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The background advertisements are larger than I would like, but they're all clearly background and individually, none of them is that big and only one is not obscured. I think we can call them de minimis. In any case, this is in Poland, and Poland has full FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment and Delete But it is FoP in Poland only when it was permanentlly (not temporarly) installed. And I'm asking wbout the sculpture itself and not about the banner in the background. And as far as I can say, it was only temporary exhibition. And in this case, we would need an OTRS permission from Z. Wąsiel himself. And this is important, because of extensive use of socket puppets and because this user was removing (or socket puppets were doing it) permission requests from his webpage - therefore we cannot be sure whether it is Z. Wąsiel himself. Actions of this and associated users are kind of fishy. Masur (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - established musicians in Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete promotional picture, I think we need an OTRS confirmation for it. Trycatch (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete bogus reason, but no evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: personal artwork by non-notable artist. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - bogus reason, I do not believe Reinhardhauke has read the description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment clearly in scope, but Reinhardhauke's stupid nomination did not point out that there seems to be a problem with copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the cooperation Commons:Nationaal_Archief the images will be uploaded by the NationaalArchiefBot. This file does not indicate that it was uploaded by that Bot or that it is e.g. derivative of a file uploaded by the bot. Is it included in the cooperation and was it released under the CC license? Martin H. (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Correct. No permission for this image. Multichill (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
advertisement --ahellwig (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - can be used to illustrate en:Bling-bling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. This file needs at least a OTRS verification. Yann (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Files of Khmerrlok
[edit]File:Cyclo-pp.jpgdeletedFile:Tuk Tuk Phnom Penh.jpgdeletedFile:Sisowath Plov.jpgdeletedFile:PhnomPenhyoupna.jpgdeleted- File:Phsahtmei2010mahatmei.jpg
File:Fountain in the park.jpgdeletedFile:NEWocicTower.jpgdeletedFile:Independence Monument at night in PhnomPenh.jpgdeleted
The uploader has found to be flickr washing. I has since deleted files which are undoubtedly copyrighted work but these files I can't find. Per policy I'm taking this to a deletion request since I can't be 100% in whether this images are genuinely the uploaders but I highly doubt it is. --Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Cyclo-pp.jpg was nicked from a blog entry from 2003; it's the second picture link near the bottom.
- File:PhnomPenhyoupna.jpg was previously uploaded to English Wikipedia by en:User:Khmerrlok as en:File:Ppatnitte.jpg, citing a Skyscrapercity post as the source. The Skyscrapercity users in turn nicked it from Flickr, where it is clearly marked as all rights reserved.
- File:Independence Monument at night in PhnomPenh.jpg comes from the same Skyscrapercity post as File:PhnomPenhyoupna.jpg. It was also nicked from Flickr, where it is clearly marked as all rights reserved by the same author as the other one.
- I don't think there's really any reason to believe that this user has only been telling us blatant lies some of the time. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted the three files. Bidgee (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Several of the others, along with a couple just deleted, appear in en:File:Phnom penh collage.jpg, uploaded by this same user. Really, anything coming from the lokryan Flickr account can be assumed bad at this point I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:NEWocicTower.jpg is a crop of a photo found on the same skyscrapercity thread, with a Flickr source, but I have not yet found the original. Ah, here it is. CC-BY-NC-ND there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Tuk Tuk Phnom Penh.jpg was found in Flickr as The Monk and The Tuk Tuk, All Rights Reserved. Bidgee (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- and another [3]. Bidgee (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Tuk Tuk Phnom Penh.jpg was found in Flickr as The Monk and The Tuk Tuk, All Rights Reserved. Bidgee (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:NEWocicTower.jpg is a crop of a photo found on the same skyscrapercity thread, with a Flickr source, but I have not yet found the original. Ah, here it is. CC-BY-NC-ND there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fountain one is in this thread, photobucket source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. Now the fun part is to find the last one left, I thought I found it earlier but it was the right location but wrong photo. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fountain one is in this thread, photobucket source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. There used to be a couple of Hillary Clinton photos (more blatant) by this uploader that have since been speedied. Curiously, they've both been removed from the Flickrstream, which LX pointed out at the Village Pump has photos uploaded on the same day as these photos, so likely the same person. It's difficult to believe the other uploads in this batch are any good.--Chaser (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is from Alexander Zhuk's book "Ranged Weapon" (Russian: "Strelkovoje Oruzhiye"). It's copyrighted. Last time (AFAIK) published 1992 or later. DL24 (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
![14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/21#c-DL24-2010-11-21T14:25:00.000Z-File_talk:Mosin_Nagant_Model_1891_"Dragoon"_(Sketch).jpg){kind=link}
Kept. - no evidence for claim - Jcb (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
![15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/21#c-Jcb-2010-12-30T15:44:00.000Z-File_talk:Mosin_Nagant_Model_1891_"Dragoon"_(Sketch).jpg){kind=link}
This image is from Alexander Zhuk's book "Ranged Weapon" (Russian: "Strelkovoje Oruzhiye"). It's copyrighted. Last time (AFAIK) published 1992 or later. Also it's not particularly useful 'cause there is a lot of photos of the same weapon. DL24 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no evidence for claim - Jcb (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is from Alexander Zhuk's book "Ranged Weapon" (Russian: "Strelkovoje Oruzhiye"). It's copyrighted. Last time (AFAIK) published 1992 or later. Also it's not particularly useful 'cause there is a lot of photos of the same weapon. DL24 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. - no evidence for claim - Jcb (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The map is considered original research as there is no proof I-82 was to extend to Tacoma. Map has been removed from parent article w:Interstate 82. Admrboltz (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete to avoid promoting a falsehood. Imzadi 1979 → 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Only source to mention extension is not a reliable source, and map of this extension is clearly OR. Dough4872 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, misleading and OR-laden. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
File:US_Navy_060321-O-9999N-004_The_Motor_Vessel_Hyundai_Fortune_burns_in_the_Gulf_of_Aden,_approximately_43_miles_off_the_coast_of_Yemen.jpg
[edit]
Despite having a PD-US-Navy license tag, this image was shot and released by the "Royal Netherlands Navy" and thereby is probably a copyvio. Even the file source site says "courtesy of Royal Netherlands Navy". Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The same problem with duplicate file: File:MV Hyundai Fortune port side aft hole.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nice that this exists. However, as of yet we have only the US Navy source, claiming "Photo courtesy of the Royal Netherlands Navy (RELEASED)". Would this really fulfil the requirements of PD-NL-Gov? --Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think so. The site of the Dutch defense department has no copyright notices. I found File:US Navy 060321-O-9999N-001 The Motor Vessel Hyundai Fortune burns in the Gulf of Aden, approximately 43 miles off the coast of Yemen.jpg and some other photos of this incident here, and I am uploading them. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:HYUNDAI FORTUNE.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect, the website is published with a copyright notice, it is not on every page but the publication (as a whole, the website) contains a copyright claim at http://www.defensie.nl/servicemenu/help/. Also what counts for this image is, if the copyright was mentioned when the Dutch Military published the files to the U.S. Navy, that communication counts, and not if some unrelated website contains a notice or not. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so the site has a copyright notice, but the only requirement is {{Attribution}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but the website copyright notice is not applicable to this large size copy and it is not clear if the copyright notice is free, Commons:Bad_sources#Netherlands_Ministry_of_Defence. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so the site has a copyright notice, but the only requirement is {{Attribution}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect, the website is published with a copyright notice, it is not on every page but the publication (as a whole, the website) contains a copyright claim at http://www.defensie.nl/servicemenu/help/. Also what counts for this image is, if the copyright was mentioned when the Dutch Military published the files to the U.S. Navy, that communication counts, and not if some unrelated website contains a notice or not. --Martin H. (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think so. The site of the Dutch defense department has no copyright notices. I found File:US Navy 060321-O-9999N-001 The Motor Vessel Hyundai Fortune burns in the Gulf of Aden, approximately 43 miles off the coast of Yemen.jpg and some other photos of this incident here, and I am uploading them. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:HYUNDAI FORTUNE.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nice that this exists. However, as of yet we have only the US Navy source, claiming "Photo courtesy of the Royal Netherlands Navy (RELEASED)". Would this really fulfil the requirements of PD-NL-Gov? --Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - this could have been a problem, but earlier this month we received a message of Dutch Defense in which they release all their external material into CC0, see OTRS ticket 2010120610018876 - Jcb (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Ecou666 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work:inconsistent resolutions, different cameras or missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio uploader of Moldova military equipment. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
picture useless without description 78.55.166.169 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong resolution, too big for an article. Multilunchbox (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - size can be specified in the article, but Fair Use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons - Jcb (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
poor quality 78.55.166.169 18:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it's not a reason for deletion, notable person: w:no:Paul Anders Normann Grendstad. Trycatch (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Appears to be the only image of this person on commons. Added to w:no:Paul Anders Normann Grendstad Captain-tucker (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Buenas tardes, me pongo en contacto con ustedes porque me he dado cuenta de que en el articulo "Radioterapia" utilizáis una imagen de un difunto familiar. Para nosotros saber que nuestro padre es expuesto por toda la red como un mono de feria es tal dolor que no se puede explicar. He editado el articulo para suprimir la imagen pero veo que otras sedes de wikipedia en otros países como por ejemplo Italia también utilizan la misma imagen para sus artículos sin mencionar los innumerables blogs i otros sitios de internet que tienen la imagen a causa de vuestra publicación o simplemente realizan un vinculo a la imagen que tenéis alojada en vuestros servidores. Os agradeceria que suprimierais la imagen de vuestro servidor para asi que mi padre descansara en paz de una vez por todas y no sea expuesto en otros sitios web ni que los vínculos a la imagen funcionen. Espero que podamos entendernos. Un saludo. 85.222.87.4 18:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I ask|pray that s'elimine the image that turns up in the entry|ticket "radioterapia" in the viquipèdia in spanish and other languages where a relative turns up. It|He|She is the reason because the person who turns up has been missing recently and brings sad remembrances|souvenirs. It|He|She is the reference: Acelerador Clinac 2100 C100, it|he|she stops tratamiento of radioterapia and the name|noun of the archive|file is Clinac 2100 C with patient.JPG Many graces. --83.60.223.18 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I ask|pray that s'elimine the image that turns up in the entry|ticket "radioterapia" in the viquipèdia in Castilian and other languages where a relative turns up. It|He|She is the reason because the person who turns up has been missing recently and brings sad remembrances|souvenirs. It|He|She is the reference: Acelerador Clinac 2100 C100, it|he|she stops tratamiento of radioterapia and the name|noun of the archive|file is Clinac 2100 C with patient.JPG Many graces. --Floquera (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good afternoons, I put|make in touch with you because I have given myself account|bill of what in I articulate it|him|her "Radiotherapy" you use an image of a family deceased. For us to know that our father is set forth by all the net like a mona|granota of fair is such pain that he|she|it can not explain itself|himself|herself. I have edited I articulate it|him|her to suppress the image but I see that other of his|hers|theirs of wikipedia in other countries like for example Italy also use the same image for its|his|her|their articles|items without mentioning the innumerable blogs and other places of internet that have the image because of your publication or simply they carry out one I link in the image that you have lodged in|on your servers. Bone agradeceria that you suppressed the image of your server for asi that my father rested in peace once and for all and is not set forth in other web sites not even that the bonds in the image work. I expect that we can understand ourselves. A greeting. 85.222.87.4 18:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC) --Floquera (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: The image is properly licensed. According to the nominator, the person pictured in the photograph is deceased, so it appears no issue of personality rights arises. I am inclined to vote "keep" because the face of the person featured is already blurred, which makes him unidentifiable. Perhaps the blurring can be increased if it is felt that the person is still identifiable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good dusk: The person who turns up in the photography yes who is identifiable for which what has to be made is to erase the face more so that she does not recognize herself. Thank you. --88.23.196.98 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good dusk: The person who turns up in the photography yes who is identifiable for which what has to be made is to erase the face more so that she does not recognize herself. Thank you. --Floquera (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Family: I understand that all of you think that maybe with the face erased is enough, you don't know this person and you couldn't identificate it with or without the face erased. You don't know this man and is not important for you, but is very important for the family. You have to think about us, I don't want to see my family in internet. If your died father was showed in a photo in the network, what would you think?? Would you like it?? I supose that is normal that the family want erase the picture. I think that the question is not if you can identificate or not identificate the man, we all have to respect the people and if his family want erase the picture, we have to erase the picture. I am from the same opinion, it would not like me to see a relative of mine who has already died every turn that consulte the viquipèdia or another article|item that the image has been able to copy for all the net of internet.--88.6.64.63 07:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Ethical concerns. The family is complaining he is his relative that he's been exposed and they do not want it. That's a very valid reason for deletion. Despite being used on numerous projects I think we have to ack the wish of their familly wich is very upset for this. We should be respecting the privacy of the people. I'm sure that the Foundation will be removing this file on sight if asked. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - for ethical reasons / por razones éticas - Jcb (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyrighted coin design. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyrighted coin design. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyrighted coin design. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyrighted coin design. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Flickr washing: see the watermark 80.187.103.161 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the Commons have several images this flickr, see here. not is a Flickr washing. Truu (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like the watermark was added by the Flickr user. That doesn't mean it is Flickr washing. Wknight94 talk 01:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not a picture of Victoria Andrews, it's someone else 97.103.5.162 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a picture of Victoria Andrews. [4] --Klodl (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Valid OTRS ticket Captain-tucker (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not really useful for educational purpouses. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: some sort of staircase made of wine bottles, but I agree with the nominator that it is not useful. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No educational use, probably vandalism. Commons is not a place to play trying to guess what is something. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please strike "vandalism" immediately! This image was uploaded to get it identified. If it was successful we could have used the image in the relevant category and articles but it was not identified.
- The uploader has responded on this talk page that it can be deleted if you like to. So: Delete. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No educational use. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: not useful without a proper description of what is depicted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind, the only contribution by the user was blatant cross-wiki vandalism, I can't believe him in anything. Trycatch (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. While this specific image file may have been created by the user who uploaded it, it isclearly entirely based on TfL's Oyster Card, which is protected by TfL copyright and contains several trademarks registered to TfL, including the card layout, the Oyster logo, the TfL roundel and the word Oyster. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - commons generally doesn't care about trademarks - see COM:NCR. The rest is probably PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Not eligible for copyright. Mostly text. MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
