Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Logo is incomplete. Complete logo has been uploaded under File:DVUpartei.svg. By the way: I can't belive that this is realy "own work"...Karsten11 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep The svg logo is complete, it is the commons rendering engine that has a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter Kuiper. I've just added {{PD-textlogo}} to this file. Please note that this DR did not follow the procedure outlined here, i.e. the {{Delete}} template was not added to the image, {{subst:delete2|...}} was not used to create this subpage, and the uploader was not notified. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is/was not correct logo of DVU. The text Deutsche Volksunion is in incorrect script. Dezidor (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Borderline speedy; as this looks like a TV screenshot perfectly. Courcelles (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie screenshot Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It's on the first page of Google Images, including the signature. [1] Courcelles (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YQSZcpg4rHg/S_V7odVw_XI/AAAAAAAAFIA/pCz23QAxqmQ/s1600/Vinod%2BKhanna%2BHotness.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bollywooddeewana.blogspot.com/2010/05/bollywood-fashion-icons-vinod-khanna.html&usg=__HSD7bCyhQ-HKkrZR-3XoxL721VA=&h=512&w=347&sz=41&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=WD9OqGukiYX1tM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=112&ei=oTbbTdSmNobc0QHH3Jn1Dw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVinod%2BKhanna%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Doy4%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D627%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divnsol0%2C342&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=301&sqi=2&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0&tx=67&ty=100&biw=1366&bih=627){kind=link}
Deleted: Blatant copyvio, false author claim from uploader - not only here. Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly this is copyrighted, should not be on Commons (MSNBC article). Jatkins (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Fastily (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
not usable MartinS (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Fastily (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unambiguous copyright violation - source is http://governor.state.nm.us/Meet_Governor_Martinez.aspx --75.211.235.14 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- How can it be copyrighted when there is a state law? Don't you know how to read.
- The State of New Mexico, per state administrative code and state assembly laws, 1.12.10 (NMAC) and 1.13.2 (NMAC) Section 15-1C-5 NMSA 1978-2005, allow usage of photos on state websites, as they are listed in the states public domain. JHarrelson (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide a online-accessable link to that source. --Túrelio (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The State of New Mexico, per state administrative code and state assembly laws, 1.12.10 (NMAC) and 1.13.2 (NMAC) Section 15-1C-5 NMSA 1978-2005, allow usage of photos on state websites, as they are listed in the states public domain. JHarrelson (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Shizhao (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible for this image. This file is not used recently. High Contrast (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal work, out of scope. --P199 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is a Playboy photo, then it certainly is not "own work" —teb728 t c 10:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Nice, but copyvio from playboy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
company profiling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonty567 (talk • contribs)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
not usable MartinS (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for non-buildings in the US. 84.62.198.162 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep It's {{PD-US-no notice}}; it's from 1935 and there's clearly no notice on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Prosfilaes Jcb (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Not a notable person. Unused image. GeorgHH • talk 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of Focus 173.163.175.193 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It is in focus sufficiently to be in use in two wiki pages. No valid reason for deletion. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is a watermark, image in low definition, certainly a copyright infringement — Preceding unsigned comment added by kimdime (talk • contribs)
- Delete Copyright seems to belong to imageglobe. Jujutacular talk 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, transfer from an original en-wiki upload of an editor who was indef-blocked for a massive history of serial deliberate copyvios Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The source that is given by the person/user who uploaded this photo can be that http://www.bolgar-hram.info/zhitie was taken it from A.Ceta (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
SVG bug; many alternatives in Category:L-proline. Leyo 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
SVG bug; many alternatives in Category:L-proline and now unused. --Leyo 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, and as last time. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
unused strange test data - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
taken from a website - copyviolation Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously from www.brentonbostwickart.com , acopyrighted website High Contrast (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused promotional image of an unknown (mexican) band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused not really good drawing of a woman - only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
private unused image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused pdf in spanish - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused private montage - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
paraboloide.png Ramirosky (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator was the one who over wrote a previous image, I assume he is requesting of deletion of just his new image. Could of course just do a revert, but please speedy close this request first. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ramirosky, what are the reasons of this deletion request? You offered no explanation for your gesture. Please offer an explanation. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- As Ramirosky explained to me, he wants to revert his upload to the previous version. It's
Done by myself. Regards, --Lucien (es·m·com) 22:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok! Better version! Well done Lucien, thanks! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- As Ramirosky explained to me, he wants to revert his upload to the previous version. It's
- Ramirosky, what are the reasons of this deletion request? You offered no explanation for your gesture. Please offer an explanation. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not the editor's work - this appears to have been taken from http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/sport/softball/image-galleries/misc/15.htm Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean it can't be allowed here. You need to find the rights status. Fry1989 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- NZ Crown Copyright (which is the norm for anything produced by the New Zealand Government). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- The best option is to have an independent SVG of the crest made, and then delete this. Fry1989 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't solve the copyright problem - this isn't PD. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean it can't be allowed here. You need to find the rights status. Fry1989 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ezarateesteban 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Not an own work, as written in text on image Abiyoyo (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Claimed to be a note signed by other person than the uploader.Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- See also the copy of this file: File:Марчук.jpg. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Photo of artwork. Abiyoyo (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. An artwork created by other person than the uploader.Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- See also other files uploaded by the same contributor and taken from the same site: File:Artyukh Igor - Hitler.jpg, File:Артюх Игорь - Масами Нагасава.JPG, File:Артюх Игорь - Елена Чижикова.jpg, File:Artyukh Igor - Praha - Karlův most 2007.jpg, File:Артюх Игорь - Artyukh Igor.jpg, File:Артюх Ігор - портрет 2010.jpg, File:1355702.jpg, File:Артюх игорь.jpg, File:Ленин - рисовал Артюх Игорь.jpg, File:Tančící dům - Artyukh Igor - 2007.jpg. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably uploaded for promotial purposes. OTRS persmission is missing, most probably out of the project scope (artworks of not-notable author). Podzemnik (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of possible non-free images. (see TinEye) ■ MMXX talk 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. Podzemnik (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
improper license tag Sushiya (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Without proper licence. Podzemnik (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
improper license tag Sushiya (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Without proper licence. Podzemnik (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by AbrilMR (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator, also missing permissions from another authors of AbrilMR´s images. Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Sethnico (talk · contribs). No evidence of premission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permission is needed. Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This hardly can be original uploader's work, having in mind the absolutely bad quality and the fact that a cropped image of much higher quality can be found, for instance, here. Besides, in the 1990s very few (professional) photographers in BG had colour films and taking pics in the Mausoleum was not allowes for anybody. This photo is stolen and grossly retouched (not the first copyright infringement of this uploader). →Spiritia 16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. --Izvora (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment. A user in Bulgarian Wikipedia helped for detecting the source of the copyright violation. This image is scaled version of a screenshot from the video "Schauplatz der Geschichte: Sofia (Място на действието: София)", minute 2'30. →Spiritia 10:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot of non-free content. Podzemnik (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This hardly can be original uploader's work, having in mind the absolutely low quality.This photo seems to be with very low resolution but grossly scaled up / retouched from someone other's work. This is not the first copyright infringement of this uploader. →Spiritia 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. --Izvora (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. A user in Bulgarian Wikipedia helped for detecting the source of the copyright violation. This image is scaled version of a screenshot from the video "Schauplatz der Geschichte: Sofia (Място на действието: София)", 10th second. →Spiritia 10:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot of non-free content. Podzemnik (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Claiming ownership over this image (1949) seems to me an obvious copyright infringement of the uploader. →Spiritia 16:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. --Izvora (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This file is not used. Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible for this image. Thus out of scope. High Contrast (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This file is not used. Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible for this image. Thus out of scope. High Contrast (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There's no way this is "own work" if it's an album cover. Copyvio. P199 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable website: no evidence of copyright clearance, out of scope NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality photograph of non-notable subject NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No longer needed, replacment created. Jae69376 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to File:West_Virginia_University_PRT_in_Morgantown.jpg--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This file is not used. Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible for this image. Thus out of scope High Contrast (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Image no longer needed, replacment created. Jae69376 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to File:West_Virginia_University_PRT_in_Morgantown.jpg--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Image no longer needed, replacment created. Jae69376 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to File:West_Virginia_University_PRT_in_Morgantown.jpg--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This file is not used. Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible for this image. Thus out of scope High Contrast (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Felix Albrecht Harta died in 1967, hence this drawing is not in the public domain until Jan 1st, 2038. FA2010 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The images are from the estate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzer0 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is available under a free license NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
unused drawing - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality drawing for made up animal article on en.wikipedia. Out of scope. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The user's other uploads have been copyvios marked as own works. Considering the history it's unlikely this web-resolution image with no exif data is really an own work by the uploader. Jafeluv (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Image contains nothing that can't be represented as ordinary text. Carnildo (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is text data, and that's out of scope, even if it was uploaded as a text file. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Demmo (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Cropped version of File:Fall of Tripolis.jpg, patent tendentious nonsense designed solely for nationalist POV-pushing. Athens2004 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, it is quite valid to highlight one area of a picture. The image itself does not press a particular POV, its usage in a particular wiki is where any POV imbalance needs to be addressed, not here. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No POV-pushing firstly, the Turks would not destroy their own mosque, and the fact that one of the corpses wear a fez shows that the corpses belong to Turks, killed in the massacre. This image is used on Turkish Wikipedia, on which we find it a useful one. Derivative works and crops are welcomed in Commons, and this does not have any difference from ordinary cropped pictures. Of course, except it may highlight an area which our Greek users might not like. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Zbyt wiele wersji tego pliku Werda (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Question So you just want to keep the original one? (Also, you should rename it by placing the template {{Rename}} on it.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: There is no valid reason for deletion, isn´t it? Podzemnik (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparent request from person depicted Tony Wills (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Info User User:PatrickScales posted a speedydelete request "I Patrick Scales, the portrayed person on the photo, want this file “Patrick Scales E8245029.jpg” to be deleted and not published!" which I have converted into a normal deletion request so that it can be discussed. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep A live performer can have no expectation that only pictures that he/she likes (ie publicity photos) are published. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the person shown on the picture is a live performer, the request of this person to not publish the photo or delete it shouldn’t be denied. -- PatrickScales (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Tony Wills. I doubt whether the user Patrick Scales is really the musician Patrick Scales (are there any proofs for the identity?). The request started on the German Site about Patrick Scales, after the user Octagon tried hard to install his own picture in the article. If the musician Patrick Scales doesn't like this picture, what about the other pictures? And why only this picture? --OhWeh (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- My name is Patrick Scales. I am the person that is shown on this photo. You may contact me through my official website if you wish. I have already stated that I am asking for deletion of this picture. The reason for my request is of personal matter. I strongly do believe that personal rights are respected and held high on Wikimedia. Patrick Scales -- PatrickScales (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Public figures don't get to control which pictures of them are available in the public. We are not an arm of anyone's public relations firm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
From agent's website - http://www.gobetween.us/uploads/images/photos%20Mira/800px-Mira_awad.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously not: above link is to a much lower resolution file. Commons file was imported from w:he:קובץ:מירה עוואד.JPG, preserving the usage conditions there. Dan Pelleg (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The link above is at lower resolution than the image here at Commons, cannot be the "source". Infrogmation (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Image no longer needed, replacment created. Jae69376 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete; still a perfectly fine and usable photograph. Evidence of replacement needs to be shown.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, and a part of the creation process of images still in use. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a U.S. government work. There are other examples of product packaging in the FDA's photostream [2]. This might be kept as uncopyrightable data, except the motto is undoubtedly thoroughly copyrighted and trademarked. Also, I think it's bad form to have things like this on Commons instead of as fair use uploads, even where a PD label might stick: it just encourages more of the same, and we have enough to do without policing borderline cases. Chaser (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It is this photo. [3]. I cropped and adjusted the levels. "I think it's bad form to have things like this on Commons instead of as fair use uploads, even where a PD label might stick" I am confused by this. Did I upload it to the wrong place? As far as being fair use, it is a government photo of a product, being used in a educational manner (to illustrate a product that contains Xanthan Gum and is currently under scrutiny by the FDA) What is a PD label? Govtrust (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is a government photo, and generally speaking those are in the public domain. However, it contains copyrighted material (the product slogan) and therefore is a derivative work of that copyrighted material. That portion that I mentioned above, might be de minimis, but it's cleaner just to upload it to the English Wikipedia as fair use, which I have now done [4].--Chaser (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate your help. Govtrust (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Location possible has the same purpose and is available in several languages.--78.55.9.190 08:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This is in use and may be a better name, so I made it a synonym of {{Location possible}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
because we will publish a new revision Aroul (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete this -- just upload the new version over the old Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is complete BS! a) Taras Shevchenko died in 1861!! b) Maxim Dmitriev (ru:Дмитриев, Максим Петрович) was born in 1858... so either the 3 year old Dmitriev took a photo of Shevchenko or Dmitriev photographed the 30 year old corpse of Shevchenko in the 1890ies... This is a falsification, or some other Taras Shevchenko; but never the Ukrainian national poet: en:Taras Shevchenko - To make this image even more ridiculous: Shevchenko left his exile in Nizhniy Novgorod in May 1859 and Dmitriev only moved to Nizhny Novgorod in 1877!!!!! this is a utter fake. Noclador (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can see here http://runivers.ru/gallery/photogallery/photo/31081/original/ this is photo of image. Done in 1890-1900. --Alex Blokha (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It can be: 1) No Dmitriev's work; 2) work of another Dmitriev, it is common surname; 3) posthumous portrait made with 19th century "Photoshop" from engraving or drawing after this one Shevchenko' self-portrait (it is definitely the same iconography); 4) some actor playing Shevchenko with make-up. In all of this cases there is no need to delete this file - only to write in description about problems with attribution. --Shakko (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per Alex Blokha, apparently the year refers to the reproduction date. --79.193.236.231 20:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did some research tonight: this is Taras Shevchenko, but the photo was taken in spring 1859 in St. Petersburg by the photographer ru:Деньер, Андрей Иванович and is today in Taras Shevchenko National Museum in Kyiv[5][6]. It is part of a series of photos which show Shevchenko (always in the same clothes) sitting with friends[7][8][9], standing[10] and the photo above of him sitting. Dmitriev has absolutely nothing to do with it. Therefore I suggest to keep the photo, but rename the file and amend the description. Noclador (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Photographer's birth name (he was from Switzerland) was Adolf Heinrich Denier, the Russian form was Andrey Ivanovich Denier (not sure about the English spelling/transliteration). --Amga (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It needs a new name. PLease suggest one and use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo Curtesy of David H. DeVorkin: http://click.si.edu/Image.aspx?image=5498&story=343&back=Story High Contrast (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Originally, the license at fr.wikipedia was Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 and uploaded in 2006, a year after the email sent by Jimbo to stop uploads of these kind of images. Also, this is an image from Nazi Germany and there is no indication of who took it or when, so the copyright still might be present in Germany (or Belgium). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No source. No author credit. Originally uploaded (by a user indefinitely blocked the next day) with a suspect and unverifiable licence. Nc clause that would make it unkeepable anyway and was removed without explanation in the transfer. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
no original source and author. The uploader on enwp has uploaded several non-free files. Saibo (Δ) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see why are you saying that - according to the information in the image author is en:user:Username12 and the image was moved from en Wiki. What is wrong with the information provided, other than lack of {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way I added {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can read file desc pages also without an information template, thanks. ;-) From where do you know the name of the author and the source? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that en:user:Username12 uploaded it and used PD-self. That was the usual format of metadata provided in 2006 for self-made images when the image was uploaded, before everybody started using {{Information}} and {{Own}}, etc. Just because our metadata standards are changing it does not mean we should nominate for deletion all the old photos that do not meet current standards. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe - but we have neither author nor source. And - please take into account that he uploaded three now deleted (because of "non-free") files on the same day he has uploaded this file. Do you still want so assume that much? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I usually try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and metadata which was acceptable 5 years ago but does not comply with current standards did not seem suspicious to me. The image, and possibly some of the deleted images, looks to me like an image someone might take from the airplane as it is landing ( I took bunch of similar images at some time). The fact that other people found other images from the same series with the same metadata suspicious in the past does not sway me. However I would vote for deletion if any of his images were deleted because they were clear copyvios, not just files suspected to be. --Jarekt (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry - I cannot look in the deleted files to find out why exactly they were deleted. However, with some files there obviously was something wrong. I will not spend more time on this... But I will correct the information template if this file is kept. → erase author and source. Which means that we will host a non-free image. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I usually try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and metadata which was acceptable 5 years ago but does not comply with current standards did not seem suspicious to me. The image, and possibly some of the deleted images, looks to me like an image someone might take from the airplane as it is landing ( I took bunch of similar images at some time). The fact that other people found other images from the same series with the same metadata suspicious in the past does not sway me. However I would vote for deletion if any of his images were deleted because they were clear copyvios, not just files suspected to be. --Jarekt (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe - but we have neither author nor source. And - please take into account that he uploaded three now deleted (because of "non-free") files on the same day he has uploaded this file. Do you still want so assume that much? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that en:user:Username12 uploaded it and used PD-self. That was the usual format of metadata provided in 2006 for self-made images when the image was uploaded, before everybody started using {{Information}} and {{Own}}, etc. Just because our metadata standards are changing it does not mean we should nominate for deletion all the old photos that do not meet current standards. --Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can read file desc pages also without an information template, thanks. ;-) From where do you know the name of the author and the source? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way I added {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Given that the user was age 16 at the time (see WP:EN userpage) and has a record of copyvio, I am not inclined to AGF. Also, I note that although we have not addressed the subject, a 16 year old cannot give a license to his/her work in many places -- it would have to be done by a parent. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
no original author and source Saibo (Δ) 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see why are you saying that - according to the information in the image author is en:user:Username12 and the image was moved from en Wiki. What is wrong with the information provided, other than lack of {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way I added {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can read file desc pages also without an information template, thanks. ;-) From where do you know the name of the author and the source? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- By the way I added {{Information}} template.--Jarekt (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- For info of others: see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zamboanga skyline.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 15:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Fair enough. I didn't check properly so I didn't notice that this series of pictures is still in use. A common mistake in categorizing. For me. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Thank you, Tony. If there is a reason to keep them then I guess it should be, otherwise I've pretty much accepted that VPC is gone - even though its closure still seems unfair to me as it had gotten more attention, usage and more interesting and encyclopedic nominations by the time that the EN:FPCers who were hell-bent on getting rid of it finally got their wish. Consider this vote the same for the rest of them. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Created for a, now, inactive wikipedia project. No other encyclopedic use. Apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an encyclopedia, no valid reason for deletion. This is part of a wikis history, deleting it makes their archived pages meaningless. Per commons scope, image is in use, therefore in scope. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Unclear information on it's source copyright policy about making of derivative works. ■ MMXX talk 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Все материалы, авторские права на которые принадлежат Интернет-холдингу Mail.Ru (в рамках сайта Hi-tech@Mail.Ru), могут быть воспроизведены в любых средствах массовой информации, на серверах сети Интернет или на любых иных носителях без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет. Единственным условием перепечатки и ретрансляции является ссылка на первоисточник. При перепечатке и ретрансляции в Интернете — обязательным является гиперссылка — Hi-tech@Mail.Ru либо hi-tech.mail.ru. hi-tech.mail.ru
Deleted: after Google translating the full page about the copyright, situation is too unclear Jcb (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This a PDF not used in any WMF project, even though it was uploaded in 2009, and is not likely to be used since it doesn't fit any project's scope, that I can see. Rob (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. File is free-use, per license Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0. File is by author whose work is contained at Wikisource, a sister project. The file satisfies both inclusion criteria, in addition to licensing criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never disputed the license. But, we don't take any and every document, just because it's properly licensed. I wasn't aware it was used at any project. I had assumed it would be listed in a "File usage on other wikis" in such a case. Could you point out where it is used at Wikisource? If it is being used, or may be used, for Wikisource, or any other WMF project, then I agree it should be kept. Rob (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is listed on the author's page, along with his other works. It will be used, I am just going to figure out the proper formatting process. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never disputed the license. But, we don't take any and every document, just because it's properly licensed. I wasn't aware it was used at any project. I had assumed it would be listed in a "File usage on other wikis" in such a case. Could you point out where it is used at Wikisource? If it is being used, or may be used, for Wikisource, or any other WMF project, then I agree it should be kept. Rob (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: When I nominated this, it was not used in any project at all, and there was absolutely no indication it ever would. There was an attempt to use it in English Wikipedia, but that was clearly outside police and guidelines, and it was removed (not by me). It has been on Commons since 2009, and found no sustained (more than a day) use on any project. Now, after I nominated the file for deletion, the original uploader (and only him) has suddenly added the file to at least four spots, in two different WMF projects, where it had never been before. Therefore, I hereby withdraw my nomination. However, if those projects decide that the file is outside scope, and does not belong, I think this file should be re-nominated in the future. I suggest that in the future, if you upload a file like this, don't wait years to show a use for it. --Rob (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rob, much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cirt could you specify where? I just did a search and found nothing on Wikisource? ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're search was done on "wikisource.org" (no "en"), but you need to search en.wikisource.org, where you'll find WikiSource:Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA. Also, search "Lawrence", not just "Larry". Or, as said above, you can just look under "File usage on other wikis" on the File page. I'll add this to the Village Pump for input. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I figured it was something like that ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're search was done on "wikisource.org" (no "en"), but you need to search en.wikisource.org, where you'll find WikiSource:Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA. Also, search "Lawrence", not just "Larry". Or, as said above, you can just look under "File usage on other wikis" on the File page. I'll add this to the Village Pump for input. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cirt could you specify where? I just did a search and found nothing on Wikisource? ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rob, much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Cirt usually does this, when his uploads are proposed for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really thrilled with this myself, but as I understand it, if it's used on a WMF project, it can't be deleted here. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which Cirt abuses. He/she uploads loads of videos and pamphlets to commons, to try to give this stuff the educational aura that wikimedia has. But the material is not encyclopedic. When that is pointed out in a DR, Cirt includes it in a bunch of pages on the projects. So I vote delete anyway. From the title it seems that this book would violate the wikimedia policy on biography of living persons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is most certainly not against any policy to have a title like Speaking Out About Organized Scientology, which has a focus on criticizing an organization. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The subtitle mentions the person Miscavage in connection with perjury. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the context of the CEO of the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what? The whole document is all about a living person. There's a substantial legal risk in hosting such a document. It would be a clear violation of Biographies of Living Persons on Wikipedia. But, as you know, this isn't Wikipedia, and this appears like a rather sneaky end run around that. Each project has it's own unique rules and procedures, and you seem to have taken advantage of that. this seems to be a simple dump of all media related to Scientology that can't go anywhere else. None of the stuff seems related to any project's mission. And, as said, you magically found these uses the day of deletion. Please don't confuse my request for withdrawal of this nomination with an acceptance of what you've done. This looks like a very serious case of gaming the system, taking advantage of the fact that few people know the rules of the non-Wikipedia WMF projects, few monitor what goes in, and there's generally less scrutiny. Unless it's made clear this document is used *properly* in a WMF project, it will need to be deleted (and I will renominate in future if needed). I would really like it if you prove me wrong, and show how you intend on using this to advance the goals of an WMF project. Anyways, I do hope you can at least acknowledge, that you've handled this inappropriately, and in the future, should show a use for a document like this immediately, not years later. --Rob (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is the personal opinion of the individual author that wrote it, and it is being represented exactly as such. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would you agree the opinions are negative, contentious, and about a living person? In Wikipedia we protect ourselves from doing damage with this kind of thing with a stringent "Biographies of Living Person" policy. However, I'm unclear what safeguards are in place her on Commons, or the sister projects you've placed it on. Just because something is somebody's opinion, doesn't mean we should be hosting it. If it's going to WikiSource it should already be published. So, where has this already been published? If it goes to wikiversity it should be used in some sort of educational manner. What educational purpose does it have? Do you think Commons is a place where anybody is free and welcome to publish any document they wish? If you had created a page of text, with the odd picture, with the exact same content, it would have been deleted as being out of scope. Yet, by spinning it into a PDF, you magically make it a media file, that's allowed. I'm not saying you've violated any rule. You know the letter of the rules better than I do. But, you are certainly are violating the spirit of those rules. Do I really have to go to various places in the different projects to bring this problem for discussion? Is it really necessary for us to write rules for every scenario, to stop every attempt at gaming? Or, can you please consider my preceding request to either show it's going to be used *properly* or remove it yourself. --Rob (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The work is by an author who is already published and recognized as an authority on the Scientology organization and has been invited to speak on his expertise on this matter. That is quite a different issue entirely than if I myself were to attempt to write such a thing. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, where was *this* document published exactly? --Rob (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The work is by an author who is already published and recognized as an authority on the Scientology organization and has been invited to speak on his expertise on this matter. That is quite a different issue entirely than if I myself were to attempt to write such a thing. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would you agree the opinions are negative, contentious, and about a living person? In Wikipedia we protect ourselves from doing damage with this kind of thing with a stringent "Biographies of Living Person" policy. However, I'm unclear what safeguards are in place her on Commons, or the sister projects you've placed it on. Just because something is somebody's opinion, doesn't mean we should be hosting it. If it's going to WikiSource it should already be published. So, where has this already been published? If it goes to wikiversity it should be used in some sort of educational manner. What educational purpose does it have? Do you think Commons is a place where anybody is free and welcome to publish any document they wish? If you had created a page of text, with the odd picture, with the exact same content, it would have been deleted as being out of scope. Yet, by spinning it into a PDF, you magically make it a media file, that's allowed. I'm not saying you've violated any rule. You know the letter of the rules better than I do. But, you are certainly are violating the spirit of those rules. Do I really have to go to various places in the different projects to bring this problem for discussion? Is it really necessary for us to write rules for every scenario, to stop every attempt at gaming? Or, can you please consider my preceding request to either show it's going to be used *properly* or remove it yourself. --Rob (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is the personal opinion of the individual author that wrote it, and it is being represented exactly as such. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what? The whole document is all about a living person. There's a substantial legal risk in hosting such a document. It would be a clear violation of Biographies of Living Persons on Wikipedia. But, as you know, this isn't Wikipedia, and this appears like a rather sneaky end run around that. Each project has it's own unique rules and procedures, and you seem to have taken advantage of that. this seems to be a simple dump of all media related to Scientology that can't go anywhere else. None of the stuff seems related to any project's mission. And, as said, you magically found these uses the day of deletion. Please don't confuse my request for withdrawal of this nomination with an acceptance of what you've done. This looks like a very serious case of gaming the system, taking advantage of the fact that few people know the rules of the non-Wikipedia WMF projects, few monitor what goes in, and there's generally less scrutiny. Unless it's made clear this document is used *properly* in a WMF project, it will need to be deleted (and I will renominate in future if needed). I would really like it if you prove me wrong, and show how you intend on using this to advance the goals of an WMF project. Anyways, I do hope you can at least acknowledge, that you've handled this inappropriately, and in the future, should show a use for a document like this immediately, not years later. --Rob (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the context of the CEO of the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The subtitle mentions the person Miscavage in connection with perjury. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is most certainly not against any policy to have a title like Speaking Out About Organized Scientology, which has a focus on criticizing an organization. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which Cirt abuses. He/she uploads loads of videos and pamphlets to commons, to try to give this stuff the educational aura that wikimedia has. But the material is not encyclopedic. When that is pointed out in a DR, Cirt includes it in a bunch of pages on the projects. So I vote delete anyway. From the title it seems that this book would violate the wikimedia policy on biography of living persons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really thrilled with this myself, but as I understand it, if it's used on a WMF project, it can't be deleted here. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is a highly detailed source document. Commons hosts vast numbers of source documents expressing all sorts of points of view. Nothing in policy or law says that they have to date back to the nineteenth century. This is not something to be deleted as patent nonsense; probably it is up for deletion because it contains an uncomfortable amount of truth. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added for extra input: Commons:Village pump#Using commons to host original documents --Rob (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thivierr (talk · contribs) is attempting to engage in forum-shopping because he does not like the content of this media file. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I went to the Village Pump in a very open and honest way, announcing it here, so everyone would see. The issue goes far beyond this file. As I said, you're probably within the rules by keeping this file (by magically finding sister projects to use this file after nomination). So, it would be inappropriate of me to just argue for deletion in *this* discussion. Hence, I tried (unsucessfully) to withdraw this nomination. But, it's entirely appropriate to discuss the rules, which seem to be abused. I'm not sure, but I think the Village Pump is the place to discuss the rules. Seriously Cirt, you're the one with the behaviour issue here. You're the one who used Commons as a free host, and let this sit since 2009, and then *suddenly* found four places where this document was magically needed, when it never was used anywhere before (except for spots it was promptly removed). Please put aside your endless paranoia. --Rob (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, whatever the outcome of this particular deletion discussion, I will respectfully defer to the consensus of the community as determined by the closing admin. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear, you feel you've done nothing wrong, and will behave in a similar manner in the future? --Rob (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I feel that this discussion will determine the community consensus of whether or not to delete this file, and that after that has been determined, I will not contest that. -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear, you feel you've done nothing wrong, and will behave in a similar manner in the future? --Rob (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I went to the Village Pump in a very open and honest way, announcing it here, so everyone would see. The issue goes far beyond this file. As I said, you're probably within the rules by keeping this file (by magically finding sister projects to use this file after nomination). So, it would be inappropriate of me to just argue for deletion in *this* discussion. Hence, I tried (unsucessfully) to withdraw this nomination. But, it's entirely appropriate to discuss the rules, which seem to be abused. I'm not sure, but I think the Village Pump is the place to discuss the rules. Seriously Cirt, you're the one with the behaviour issue here. You're the one who used Commons as a free host, and let this sit since 2009, and then *suddenly* found four places where this document was magically needed, when it never was used anywhere before (except for spots it was promptly removed). Please put aside your endless paranoia. --Rob (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thivierr (talk · contribs) is attempting to engage in forum-shopping because he does not like the content of this media file. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: This is how I came to know about this file in the first file. Basically, this file got added in violation of Wikipedia's Policy of Biographies of Living people, and was promptly removed. This explains why Cirt added uses just before the Deletion Request. If he added it to projects when first uploaded, they would likely have been removed long ago, and then it would be deleted. So, instead, he waits for a deletion request, adds a usage, and figures that even if it gets removed from the projects, it will have survived the Deletion Request. --Rob (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- That bad faith assessment of my motivation is incorrect. I was unaware of that addition to that wiki page, I actually do not watchlist or monitor that particular page. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Scope on Commons is about potential use, not actual use (rather, actual use is a complete refutation of any "not possible" arguments). I think this type of thing is, and always was, pretty clearly in the scope of Wikisource, and as original source media therefore in Commons scope. There are media being uploaded without (yet) being transcribed on Wikisource (they are a much smaller project) but that does not change anything about whether it should be deleted. We do not delete if things are in use or not, we delete only if there is no reasonable use which could be made. If you accept current usages are legitimate, then the original argument was incorrect as well (perhaps just forgetting about non-Wikipedia projects, which is understandable, but still incorrect). Yes it helps to actually make use of stuff, so there are obvious links, but Commons should not dictate the schedule of Wikisource volunteers either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- How was I supposed to know there was potential use? When I nominated it, there was no usage, and no explanation in the file. There was a brief improper use in Wikipedia. And, there was no indication that it would ever be used properly. This is a text document (not scan), so waiting for transcription isn't an issue. Now, if it had been uploaded in the last few days, or even weeks, it's best to assume the uploader will eventually find a use. But, this was uploaded in 2009, so it seemed reasonable to assume no proper use was coming. As for current usages, that's just post-nomination. So, it could be permanent, or end tomorrow. We don't know. We'll have to wait a while, to see if the files are actually kept by their respective projects. So, this nomination has been made irrelevant. --Rob (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It needs to be transcribed, since PDFs do not automatically output wiki-text. If you want to say you're sure no uses could be made. you should know how projects like Wikisource work. --—innotata 10:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- How was I supposed to know there was potential use? When I nominated it, there was no usage, and no explanation in the file. There was a brief improper use in Wikipedia. And, there was no indication that it would ever be used properly. This is a text document (not scan), so waiting for transcription isn't an issue. Now, if it had been uploaded in the last few days, or even weeks, it's best to assume the uploader will eventually find a use. But, this was uploaded in 2009, so it seemed reasonable to assume no proper use was coming. As for current usages, that's just post-nomination. So, it could be permanent, or end tomorrow. We don't know. We'll have to wait a while, to see if the files are actually kept by their respective projects. So, this nomination has been made irrelevant. --Rob (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, in use now, so unless legal issues make keeping a problem—which per the discussion it seems they don't. --—innotata 10:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am a Wikisourcer. This document would maybe be within the Wikisource scope. (NPOV is interpreted differently than Wikipedia and what the fact is, is of very little interest.) But it would maybe also be deleted on sv.wikisource, because of the legal issues. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- That policy (as translated) should remind us of something. Now and then the adherents of expanded BLP will question why the English Wikipedia should stick with American law rather than taking European law into account. But is there any question at all of whether the Swedish Wikipedia would consider shifting from the European law to something closer to that of the U.S.? We need to take our freedom where it is offered, and not compromise with those who can never compromise with us. Wnt (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not fully advocating for a keep, but I'd just like to point out that there are many legitimate reasons for deletion of documents of this general nature -- but this particular file happens to escape falling within most such reasons. It's not defamation of a random private individual by a random blogger, but the historical reminiscences of a former Scientology insider with respect to an individual who is a public figure and has been involved in a long string of lawsuits and public controversies for at least twenty years. It should be evaluated for what it is, not what it isn't. AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: What is the license of the photo on the front page of the pdf? --Grcampbell (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. Seems to be File:2008 09 anon hamburg 064 Larry Brennan 01.jpg, so the photo is not a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
unused strange drawing - out of scope (should be an advertisement for a band (even more out of scope)) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question Yes. Why keeping?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not too strong in favor of keeping. I closed hundreds of nominations by the same nominator with out a good deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. File is not used. It is hardly thinkable that this drawing can be used for encyclopedic purposes. --High Contrast (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: dubious source and author. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)