Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I wish to delete this photograph as it is from my personal collection. JPSummit (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith request by uploader, 1 month after uploader; image was hardly usable anyway. Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Mother's_Finest_1972.jpg ===
Fair use images do not belong on Wikimedia Commons. Mathonius (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- This image has now been uploaded on the English Wikipedia, see en:File:Mother's Finest-1972.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Silver Spoon (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope ? RE rillke questions? 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete copyvio -- Warfieldian
Deleted: speedied as copyvio Rosenzweig δ 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Exif data title and author do not agree with uploaders description and filename. Suspect permission. Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete speedy, taken from the Advocate Warfieldian (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig δ 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded with local filename in error. Duplicate of correctly named file Mfwills (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted as incorrectly named duplicate. Rosenzweig δ 21:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
blatant copyright infringement 93.96.113.154 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete use speedy delete for these Warfieldian (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig δ 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Missing reliable and/or verifiable source information. No way to verify that the uploader did not fabricate copyright status and/or attribution details FASTILY (TALK) 06:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Again? --Pauk (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, already the original upload en:File:View of Piermont, NH.jpg said "from an original 1913 postcard published by the American Engraving Company", which sounds at least credible/plausible when viewing the image. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep the scene with the horse-drawn carriage looks pre-1923 to me. And can you prove that NASA made a lunar landing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)- Keep "from an original 1913 postcard published by the American Engraving Company" is a reasonable source for a postcard. Trycatch (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
copyvio Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:EugeneZelenko (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted photograph - original photo is not the work of the Flickr contributor. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The person this image is of was born in 1950, so the pd-art tag is provably incorrect. Courcelles (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom. not possible for author to be dead 70 years. Warfieldian (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Flag of the Canadian Forces, NOT the Prime Minister, and we have an SVG version of this flag already. Delete Fry1989 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Standard of the Prime Minister of the Maldives.svg is pre-existing SVG of this flag. Delete. Fry1989 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - That would not necessarily be a reason to delete but the fact that it's a non-Jaume-Olle FOTW image is a good reason (see http://flagspot.net/flags/mv-gov.html ). AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Flag of the Canadian Forces, NOT the Prime Minister. We also have an SVG version of this flag anyways. Delete. Fry1989 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted and trademarked logos. A photo of a copyrighted image does not automagically make said copyright image free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Large portion is copyrighted image, does not meet de minimis. Jujutacular talk 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Including
- File:Auto_rotisserie_thumb.jpg
- File:Base stand assembly thumb.gif
- File:Axle workstation thumb.gif
- File:Engine stand thumb.gif
- File:Hood picker thumb.jpg
- File:Wheel hanger thumb.jpg
- File:Axle-workstation-attachment134w.jpg
- File:Autodolly 175.jpg
- File:Engine stand thumb.gif
- File:Hood picker thumb.jpg
- File:Wheel hanger thumb.jpg
- File:Axle-workstation-attachment134w.jpg
- File:AutoDollyThumb.gif
- File:Hd auto dolly stack134w.jpg
- File:DollyDockThumb.gif
- File:RollingRackThumb.gif
- File:Tiredolly134w.jpg
- File:Roll-around134w.jpg**
- File:Race-car-roll-around134w.jpg
- File:Service-seat134w.jpg
- File:Trailer-jack-dolly134w.jpg
- File:CycleDollyThumb.gif
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned signature. used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope. Jujutacular talk 20:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pamphlet/book cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pamphlet/book cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 06:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No valid source ("wikipedia"). Sémhur (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No source. Copyright status unverifiable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Info The same image is available on an external site, with a copyright © Norbert Pousseur, see the image information. The author of that website claims copyrights on the whole content, photographs included, here (in French). --Myrabella (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of a publication or an official website Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of a publication or an official website Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not a copyvio but out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploader identifies himself as "born in 1984" (en:Ddiaz841). So this photo from 1962 (so says file description) cannot be "own work". Neither File:YAfers from the 1980s.jpg. Files File:The New Guard Spring 2011.jpg and File:YAF Cigar Man.jpg are quite recent but - duck test? Note that all four are used in the same article, en:Young Americans for Freedom, - this is the only article edited by the uploader in en-wiki. NVO (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Shrek puppet - obviously copyrighted. ~ NVO (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Prominently features screen of a video game (presume it's under copyright - this is a commercial event, not an EFF convention). For me, the screen is the main subject, not de minimis. Blurring the screen will most likely make the photo useless. You decide. NVO (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, Man. I hope this is not another case of Commons:license laundering. (TheLoverofLove (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC))
- Another Thing, i don't think an image with a few small screens of video games would be copyrighted or if the video game screens could be the main subject of the image being copyrighted, that's what i would say. So i would Keep the image if i were you. Also, the image is already being used on 2 wikis! (TheLoverofLove (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Photo from 1955 - I doubt that Flickr account Image Editor was there. Note that en:Emmett_Till uses a similar photo as fair-use. According to the article, the funeral was attended by many many reporters - proper attribution of this photo may be impossible. ~ NVO (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Flickr washed. Jujutacular talk 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional shot. Available on manufacturer's website [1]. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the link you posted is smaller and has a watermark, whereas our version doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The link I posted is for the low resolution version of the image. The high resolution version can only be accessed with a press login on the website (which I don't have). This image is on the manufacturer's website amongst other promo shots. I think it is unlikely, that they would grab their promotional images off the internet. Even more so, when this image looks a lot like a promotional shot. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope? RE rillke questions? 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no educational value and not supporting any wikimedia project.Warfieldian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
ist nicht mehr aktuelle Rivella (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, invalid reason for deletion (is not the current design), but maybe you can release another image in the PD? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, change the description and keep it for historical reasons -- MichaelFrey (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for a different reason: I don't see a permission (free license) by Rivella for the label, and I think that the design is too sophisticated to qualify as PD ineligible - the sun, shapes, soy bean... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
screenshots of the game has been deleted on en. It is not an work of the US Army Avron (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - © Americas Army 2011 --Sreejith K (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons:FOP#Uzbekistan says "no FOP" but is it eligible for copyright? I do not think de minimis can apply here. If this has to go there is more files like that. MGA73 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Drilnoth (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.--Inefable001 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogus flag transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. See deletion discussion at en here. Image is unused and has no educational value because it pictures a flag which does not exist. Licensing is also suspect because of the images contained in it. Drilnoth (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninguna de estas banderas poseen fuentes que demuestren su procedencia y autenticidad. Las he marcado todas para que sean borradas inmediatamente por un administador. Son banderas claramente inventadas.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and out of scope. RE rillke questions? 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Warfieldian (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Just google. RE rillke questions? 14:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Either out of scope, if not, we need COM:OTRS permission. RE rillke questions? 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work. Jujutacular talk 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France. This text is under copyright. Sémhur (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment And not made in 2011: the same image has been posted on a thread in a forum in 2009. There is also the same picture but in a smaller size on a page of the official website of the club. --Myrabella (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text file. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:02 (2).jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
SVG bug, not used anywhere. Leyo 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unused and broken; could easily be drawn in non-broken form if needed. DMacks (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
SVG bug, not used anywhere. Leyo 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unused and broken; could easily be drawn in non-broken form if needed. DMacks (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if this is a copvio, but it is the "full content" of the page: http://therealbigjohn.com/ Mabdul (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not needed. Anka Friedrich (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio from http://imagens.kboing.com.br/emoticons/19249.gif. --Leyo 17:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio and not needed Warfieldian (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from http://imagens.kboing.com.br/emoticons/19249.gif High Contrast (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Andrei Stroe for "copyvio|1=http://www.infotravelromania.ro/mamaia.html". The file are indeed identical in resolution and size. However, as this image is on Commons since 2007, it's hard to say which one is the copy and which the original. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was already on the external site in early 2005: [2]. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Then Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Then
- Delete. Probable copyvio. The other uploads by the same uploader are suspect too. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is a bit nitpicky, but this is in fact a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: e.g. PD-text High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely to be promo photo, not own work. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
and File:Ap186.JPG.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
and File:Vergaraennacimiento.JPG. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope? RE rillke questions? 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
More a text article than an image. /Out of scope? Source=www.lampatao. and author=uploader ? Confusing. RE rillke questions? 17:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - A paper packaging of a mass-produced product with such the simple design, I think that it fall outside the guidelines of subject to copyright.--Degueulasse (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact, that this is mass produced, does not change the copyright. The design is IMHO not a simple geometric shape and doesn't lack originality. However, this would be required for the object to be copyright-free. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you think about fashion of the bottle? In that case, I think that it is applicable to packaging of a mass-produced. A paper packaging, too. For example, the subject to copyright is pure art, for ornamental purposes and so on, but that packaging is not the case. If it isn't so, such images with the simple design would not exist. I think as above, but I have no objection to deletion requests.--Degueulasse (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am talking about copyright in general. Every personal creation is subject to copyright, unless it is a special case (e.g. the creation is ineligible for copyright, see {{PD-ineligible}}). However, in the US the bar for originality is pretty low, so this is IMHO definitely copyrightable. "Mass produced" is not a copyright exception. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see. As just another opinion. Thank you very much for your very enlightening talk.--Degueulasse (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am talking about copyright in general. Every personal creation is subject to copyright, unless it is a special case (e.g. the creation is ineligible for copyright, see {{PD-ineligible}}). However, in the US the bar for originality is pretty low, so this is IMHO definitely copyrightable. "Mass produced" is not a copyright exception. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you think about fashion of the bottle? In that case, I think that it is applicable to packaging of a mass-produced. A paper packaging, too. For example, the subject to copyright is pure art, for ornamental purposes and so on, but that packaging is not the case. If it isn't so, such images with the simple design would not exist. I think as above, but I have no objection to deletion requests.--Degueulasse (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact, that this is mass produced, does not change the copyright. The design is IMHO not a simple geometric shape and doesn't lack originality. However, this would be required for the object to be copyright-free. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
logo from football team, most likely from homesite of the football team: http://www.groen-geel.nl/ which seems to be copyright protected. Unlikely "own work" Miho (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Not needed any longer Strainu (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 14:22, 24 July 2011 by Multichill, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. Warfieldian (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons
Derivative work of copyrighted label Warfieldian (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- This photo is my own work, a picture I took, and should not be deleted. I have taken pictures of products before and never had this issue. Tinton5 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The label and the photograph on it have copyrights -- therefore this image infringes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No verification that the picture was taken by uploader. It's all over the Internet, including at http://www.rochester.edu/commencement/2011/honorees.html. Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
permission is only "for Wikipedia". Not sufficient. It does not pay back to ask for a new permission as this is a quite bad (not in use) picture... Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted packaging. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of a publication or an official website Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- delete I'm not sure if tabular printouts qualify for copyright protection, but to me it's out of scope. NVO (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Monceffarhat (talk · contribs). Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info should be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Facebook image. Yann (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by NEBOLUSHION (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Facebook image. Yann (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and other uploads by Sarasidle (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
France has no FoP and this is modern building within copyright which is subject of the photo Warfieldian (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Picture of a street, in use to illustrate an article about that street. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. As the previous user.--Mbzt (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment : I must recall that : .... cependant la jurisprudence française admet qu'il peut ne pas y avoir de contrefaçon, quand l'œuvre exposée n'est pas le sujet principal de la photographie. ; and it's the case here (see for exemple size of this subject / size of the photo, position of this subject, other building taller than this one, ....) --Mbzt (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this FoP-mania is getting sillier by the day. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm relatively new to reviewing licenses but if the FoP concerns are silly, then it should be more clearly stated in the FoP guidelines that they are not to be taken seriously. From COM:FOP "A photograph of a building or even any scene in a city or a village inevitably depicts some pieces of architecture or even sculptures. The photograph may or may not have its own creative element, making it a work of its own, but the value of this work clearly depends on the value in the works that are depicted on it. In case of such a dependency the photograph is deemed to be a derivative work. This restriction on building photographs is often weakened by a separate clause for photographs or pictures of buildings in public places. " France does not have this loosening of restrictions so I nominated the photo. I won't go through the trouble in the future to nominate these if the consensus is against using FoP as a criteria for evaluation. Warfieldian (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, clear de minimis. --ELEKHHT 08:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Any architectural detail is de minimis. Yann (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture stored at the tree root PhilDur (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep talk page, review images one by one - I just nominated four for deletion. NVO (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- How about just using Cat-A-Lot to remove this category from all of them? Many will then show up as uncategorized, but that's better than having them sit here or having one of us try to categorize 45 images today, how many more next week? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
سكس 41.209.118.194 17:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Arabic lettering appears to read "sex", which really doesn't make too much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason Raymond 06:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source website "Crédits photographiques © Réunion des musées nationaux " http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr?ACTION=CHERCHER&FIELD_1=REF&VALUE_1=M5037000742 Teofilo (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted per nom; no actual source info on Commons upload. Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
82.132.249.31 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, no educational value Warfieldian (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - No reason given by requester. Warfieldian, how is this out of scope? It's in several categories, is decent quality (and fairly lengthy). Human bodily function is within project scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'll quote from the project scope page, "Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose." Of course, it's a matter of a opinion, but I don't think this was uploaded for educational purposes and I think it is inferior quality. Warfieldian (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: out of scope, no educational value, better media available in Category:Male masturbation (COM:NUDE). Mathonius (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I would say no comment... but.. well, I will comment: the quality is fairly high and we are not here to editorialize other projects. Do not kill all images depicting humans... --Saibo (Δ) 01:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Mathonius. --Angelus (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Warfieldian. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
UDR: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Masturbacion_masculina.gif --Saibo (Δ) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted in UDR. --Saibo (Δ) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Porn Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - was only undeleted 2 days ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Evadonnamebarak (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 23:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong name 31.16.5.183 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
please delete this file or change the file name into Otto Fricke (Admiral) Egonist (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is very simple, just put {{Rename}} on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
redundant Egonist (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Question Is this realy own work? You took this fotograf yourself in year 1942? --JuTa (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: same problem with File:Otto Fricke (Admiral).jpg. Jujutacular talk 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted both -- not enough information to establish status. No "own work" as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
please delete this image - uploaded by mistake. thank you http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Dawson.jpg Pimpampam (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
please delete this image - uploaded by mistake. thank you http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Dawson.jpg Pimpampam (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: done; next time, click the request link at the file’s page, please. AVRS (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Clayton Ross Clayton Jamal Ross (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per Clayton Ross. Tm (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
speedyvk --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Socialhubz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope?
RE rillke questions? 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete no educational value and not supporting any wikimedia project. Warfieldian (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Unpluggedsergio (talk · contribs). Historical photos. May be in public domain, but relevant information should be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This file appears to have been taken from this website which unfortunately has no copyright notice that I could find that would be compatible with our CC-BY-SA guidelines. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is ineligible for copyright, please take a careful look at Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The logo is not protectable, but obviously out of project scope. - A.Savin 07:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No independently confirmed permission from the copyright holder beyond the uploader's statement. See my other comments at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg. – Adrignola talk 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Louvre Pyramid
[edit]- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9189.jpg
- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9188.jpg
- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9185.jpg
- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9190.jpg
- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9192.jpg
- File:Pyramide du Louvre 9197.jpg
« These works or works by this artist may not be in the public domain, because the artist has not been dead for at least 70 years. » & No COM:FOP in France.
I only nominated those uploaded recently ; to my understanding older ones were kept in DR (because of De minimis I guess), but they should be considered as well. --Jean-Fred (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per the original poster: work by I. M. Pei, still alive; no freedom of panorama in France; pictures do not pass the De minimis test. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
we have File:Logo MPOCOM 2004.png and File:MPOCOM - Logo 2001.png. PNG/SVG is the preferred format for graphics but some admins refuse to delete as a dupe. So we have this DR.
RE rillke questions? 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Weak delete I think I would delete all four -- out of scope and no permission for what appears to be a copyrighted logo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim - I disagree with the nomination reason, but the copyright issue makes me decide to delete Jcb (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work and useless without a description. RE rillke questions? 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: A derivative but of a WP-user. That's why we can assume having permission. Either give the uploader some time to include this image in his userpage or keep it. -- RE rillke questions? 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused user image of hardly contributing user Jcb (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. For example, google for File:Stadiumi-i-ri-Qemal-Stafa.jpg or for File:KadriRoshi.jpg or for File:Edi-rama.jpg and all declared as own work. No Exif, no high resolution. Even photographs of coins are protected by copyright.
- File:AlbanianPoliceCarPlate.jpg
- File:DiplomaticCouncilAlbanianPlate.jpg
- File:AlbanianTaxiPlate.jpg
- File:Alboldplate.png
- File:AlbanianLek.jpg
- File:AlbanianLekBanknotesAndCoins.jpg
- File:KalajaLibohova.jpg
- File:LibohovaCity.jpg
- File:PartiaSocialiste.jpg
- File:Edi-rama.jpg
- File:KadriRoshi.jpg
- File:Albania team jerseys.png
- File:Stadiumi-i-ri-Qemal-Stafa.jpg
- File:AlbanianTeamLogo.jpg
- File:Kombetarja Logo.jpg
- File:AlbanianBanknotes-Coins.jpg
- File:Albanian Lek.jpg
RE rillke questions? 18:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete highly dubious that these are uploaders own work given no EXIF and low res and nature of the photos.Warfieldian (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
France has no Freedom of Panorama and this building is hotel constructed in 20th century according to its website Warfieldian (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Architecte mort en 1942 (+ de 70 ans) => OK --Mbzt (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
cause i posted my signature a long time ago, and now I want it removed so it doesn't show on google when people search for my name. no good :( 67.168.72.160 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
don't want this signature to be on the search engines. Evoplus (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)