Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_Sports_Complex.jpg){kind=link}
-01.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Das bin ich und ich möchte dieses Foto gelöscht haben. Ulli Ziegenfuß (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Taketa (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I noted the subpage wasn't there so I made one. I support deletion, since the image is not used and probably of no usefull purpose. Taketa (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per request of depicted person - file not used ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems to be doubtful: this drawing is more likely a derivative work High Contrast (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
203.81.165.107 09:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason given to delete. Tm (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for deletion; image has OTRS-backed license Tabercil (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Tagged for chemical mistake; unused and replaceable by File:6-O-Methylguanine.png that resolves tagged problem DMacks (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused erroneous drawing AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
duplicate image, not used anymore, please remove Ceinturion (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of unused file, same day as upload. – Adrignola talk 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused in article space, can easily be converted to TeX. Yikrazuul (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Authors of the source images are not properly stated - this is required on the page here not up to the user to search on the other image pages. In the current state the compilation is a copyright violation Denniss (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- No big deal, but: the NASA satellite photo has no source link. I hope the uploader (the same User:08OceanBeach SD who made the collage) can fix it. And of course the usual mixup of CC 3.0 from Commons and CC 2.0 from Flickr. NVO (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I found and added the source link for the NASA satellite photo and listed the authors and licenses for the images of the montage. As the montage is now, it is no longer subject to deletion. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Source is properly stated; nice collage by the way High Contrast (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Das bin ich und ich möchte dieses Foto gelöscht haben. Ulli Ziegenfuß (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Taketa (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I noted the deletion nomination was incomplete so I have nominated it. I support deletion, since the image is not used and probably of no usefull purpose. Taketa (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is in use at en:User:Ulli1105... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested the deletion of a personal photograph of himself High Contrast (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope image. Bill william comptonTalk 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 77.184.164.61 04:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment – Most probably the user who created that article is himself in this image, in which no one is notable, except middle one who is the former president of India; so is it possible that a cropped version of image can be uploaded? --Bill william comptonTalk 05:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong licensing header. IrishSaint (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of sculpture. No FOP for sculpture in Japan. No date given for the sculpture, but the fact that it's a soccer player suggests it's relatively recent. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete According to [1], the sculptor Uchu Shiozaki (塩崎宇宙) died in 1990; thus the copyright is still in effect. Yasu (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no FoP in Japan for commercial use. Warfieldian (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
image taken from http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/s5fVZBFAvYum4cjVePeuBQ, where it is CC-BY-SA licensed by user "Steven Swafford". However, EXIF data of the 532x800 pix version reveal "David Edwards/Dailyceleb.com 818-249-4998" as photographer. Túrelio (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Picasa washing. This Picasa user's photostream has many copyrighted images from other sources--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on billboard, prominently featuring non-free photo. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on sign, prominently featuring non-free drawing and diagram. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on billboard, prominently featuring non-free diagram of neighbourhood. Also including non-free flower drawing for logo. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on sign (background is just flat dirt), includes non-free diagram of houses, non-free photo, and small non-free logo. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Includes non-free photo of a man and non-free diagram of neighbourhood. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph is primarily of sign, prominently featuring non-free neighbourhood diagram, non-free photo of a man, and non-free rainbow logo. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, without the sign, there is nothing to this photo of use, a COM:DM argument therefore fails. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of http://www.flickr.com/photos/8184003@N03/504411538/ , see http://www.flickr.com/groups/comment/discuss/72157603359001884/ . sугсго 07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the original photographer encouraged modification by anybody and approved of this result. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- He doesn't encouraged commercial use. sугсго 10:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No source, and these images are not in public domain in B&H Smooth_O (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I want to start over again so that the licensing is right Mpastore82 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Polarlys deleted File:John O. Pastore.jpg High Contrast (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
_Sports_Complex.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Sports_Complex.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo was taken with a cheap camera. I plan to upload a better one than this soon. — Finemann (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
_Sports_Complex.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Túrelio deleted File:Bhavan's Vidya Mandir (Poochatty) Sports Complex.jpg High Contrast (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
_Sports_Complex.jpg){kind=link}
tagged for chemical mistake; unused; replaceable by File:CS-chemical-synthesis.png, which is same-format and structurally correct (reaction cited on en:CS_gas) DMacks (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Contains an incorrect chemical structure. Suitable replacement exists. Ed (Edgar181) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 13:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Looks like non-free Google Maps content. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Proposed_mechanism_of_lysine_cyclodeaminase_conversion_of_L-lysine_to_L-pipecolic_acid.gif
[edit]
Unused, low-quality, chemically flawed (tagged for a month). Have File:Picolinic acid biosynthesis.png that fixes these problems (most importantly the mistake--verified against source). DMacks (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Flickr washing -- posted to Flickr account of "Richard" but clearly watermarked as taken from another website. Warfieldian (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Highly likely flickr copyright violation or flickr file washing. --High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Martin H. deleted File:April Bowlby.JPG High Contrast (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Flickr washing -- posted to Flickr account of "Richard" but clearly watermarked as taken from another website. Warfieldian (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Highly likely flickr copyright violation or flickr file washing. --High Contrast (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Martin H. deleted File:April Bowlby.JPG High Contrast (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the uploader never actually stated the source or author of this file was him/herself, this is a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I feel that this is {{PD-Text}} --Sreejith K (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps if someone cropped the design from the bottom, it would be. But I do not think it is now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Also poor quality Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Also very similar image:
Derivative work - photo is primarily of a billboard featuring a non-free copyrighted logo and photograph of a family. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Focused primarily on the poster, which consists mainly of a non-free copyrighted photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on billboard, which prominently features non-free photograph. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
-01.jpg){kind=link}
-01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
+Derivative Versions: File:European Parliament Buildings (2008)-01 cropped.jpg File:European Parliament Buildings (2008)-01 cropped02.jpg File:European Parliament Buildings (2008)-01 cropped1.jpg File:European Parliament Buildings (2008)-01 cropped2.jpg File:European Parliament Buildings (2008)-01 cropped3.jpg
-01_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
-01_cropped02.jpg){kind=link}
-01_cropped1.jpg){kind=link}
-01_cropped2.jpg){kind=link}
-01_cropped3.jpg){kind=link}
There is no FOP in Belgium - so unless this sculpture is public domain for some reason (e.g. age) this photo is a DW. Saibo (Δ) 06:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
-01.jpg){kind=link}
At last I found something: according to fr:Espace_Léopold#Visiteurs It was designed by May Claerhout in 1993. The sculpture is also mentioned at her article. And at her website http://www.mayclaerhout.be/main.php?taal=engels&pagina=Europa Sure - someone can ask her for permission.
@the FWS colleagues: please try to look for such things before reworking.
When this DR is done I (apparently) have to cleanup the Belgium categories... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 06:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
-01.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
-01.jpg){kind=link}
A personal small photo of a person whose article was deemed to be about a non-notable person. → Not really in scope and to protect the person depicted. Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
No particular meaning or use Rd232 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
neither made by a polish photographer nor first published in Poland so PD-Poland does not apply, same/similar image was deleted at Commons long time ago Denniss (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-s-No-9N_FUo/SbCzzKTgI_I/AAAAAAAAAPA/ryWKpxd7aGI/INScomise007.jpg I doubt this smaller version is your own work. Saibo (Δ) 23:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - no use/no useful description / no wikipedia link, just another website screenshot, uploaded by the website owner (apparently). Anyway, unsure what the source of the depicted images is. Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:Morote Rebolledo.jpg
Two different author of these web-resolution photos claim own work. → One of both or both are not telling the truth... COM:L! Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Very dubious. Deleted both. High Contrast (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photograph primarily focused on sign, sign prominently features a non-free photograph and a non-free diagram. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- 688 square meters max? Quite tight; settle for no less than 5,000. Delete, little foreseeable use even for spam (it's from 2006, the place must be built-up by now). NVO (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- conditionally Keep for historical utility based on the answers to several questions:
- Is "historical utility" a reason for keep at Commons? Could it be rehabilitated with CC permission from billboard copyright holder at OTRS and retouching (rm phone number/name, crop watermark)? Licensed, can a photo be kept for future use (say, in an article about development in that area, environment, etc.)? --Lexein (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission from the billboard copyright holder is not only extremely unlikely but insufficient. The prominent photo is probably from a clipart collection or photo database, and someone else is the copyright holder. It would be a mess to track them all down and totally not worth the effort. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Drat. Found it here preview.tinyurl.com/3fs4p8a. A much wider shot, or shifted to the side, might have been useful. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS permission from the billboard copyright holder is not only extremely unlikely but insufficient. The prominent photo is probably from a clipart collection or photo database, and someone else is the copyright holder. It would be a mess to track them all down and totally not worth the effort. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems to fall outside the scope of the project. There is no indication of how this can be educational Ben.MQ (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Author requested-own work in good faith. petiatil »User»Talk 08:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Since it is not in use Ben.MQ (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no such micronation Valugi (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no such micronation Valugi (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no such micronation Valugi (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no such micronation Valugi (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A personal message by a Wikipedia editor; file is no use to anyone else Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - user image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- so? Commons:Scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would still say that a user image which is merely a fancy way of displaying a textual message and which has no conceivable reuse value because of its specificity is out of scope. Rd232 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- so? Commons:Scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: only in use in a few very old user talk archives Jcb (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Useless gallery: only one image. Mathonius (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright © 2010 Smooth_O (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably copyvio, can be found on various sites on net. Smooth_O (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Possibily copyvio Ben.MQ (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
image is of poor quality Shaibalahmar (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong use of GFDL, wrong use of old CC licenses, authors not stated (where relevant) Denniss (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Source files (all at Wikimedia Commons) are linked and the license only applies to the collage, links to the individual copyright situations have been provided. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Four source images had been deleted, they need to be blanked/replaced/removed or the whole collage has to be deleted. Denniss (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - copyright status of the components is vital for the collage - Jcb (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 09:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Very low resolution, no metadata, and uploader's only contrib. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Higher resolution found here Jcb (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of student newspaper. Unlikely to be in the PD. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No indication of copyright status of the newspaper. Ben.MQ (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a damaged file that does not display properly. It is not usable. ChemNerd (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete File:DMT biosynthetic pathway.png is the in-use equivalent that doesn't have problems. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Likely obtained from the Internet as the EXIF info indicates this image is a screenshot. Wcam (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A corriger Mouna.ait (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
structurally incorrect (per disputed-chem tagging). have File:Biotin-3D-balls.png as correct alternative DMacks (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can the image be renamed & re-captioned to what it actually shows? Or is it an error so horrendous deletion is the only course of action? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's certainly a diagram of a molecule that is chemically/physically possible, and it is related to a real one (it's the "enantiomer" of the one in the other diagram). But it doesn't appear to be the real one found in nature (cf. the other enantiomer). I found a few literature mentions of it, but they boil down to that it can be made in a lab and that it is the non-natural enantiomer. So the image certainly doesn't fit the bill of the reason it was made (per editor-history, to illustrate the natural one) but I have no objection to keeping it (with some name/description improvements) if someone can think of a realistic educational purpose (per commons:scope) to keep. But a pretty image of non-natural enantiomer for the sake of having "pretty image of non-natural enantiomer" doesn't cut it for me, since we already also do have tons of pairs of such images (this one isn't useful in that context without a similarly drawn one of the opposite). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The image is an incorrect depiction of biotin ( it is the unimportant non-natural mirror image, as DMack says). I don't feel that it serves any usefulness and is more likely to be misused, as has happened already. Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep and rename to avoid confusion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and Ed, no educational value for this "hypothetic" compound. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File not free (from a newspaper) / Image non libre provenant d'un journal kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File not free (from a newspaper) / Image non libre provenant d'un journal kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File not free (from a newspaper) / Image non libre provenant d'un journal kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File not free (from a newspaper) / Image non libre provenant d'un journal kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File not free (from a newspaper) / Image non libre provenant d'un journal kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 18:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not PD, Oregon is a separate entity from the US government. Marcusmax(speak) 18:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I replaced it in the article with a state location map. I don't see how this image could be considered free content. –droll [chat] 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Kopie vermutlich von https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/profile.cfm?personID=20061 --Rieke Rittenmeyer (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Autopsy shot sourced to an anti-Scientol. site (which currently hosts this and more autopsy images of the same person), credited to Dr. Joan Wood as author, using a permission rationale "They were released by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Crockett Farnell on 20 July 2000. This is a mirror of http://www.parishioner.org/agree.html (dead link)", which has been copied from the source website. This "release" likely refers only to (press) publication, such as with US military images, but does not mean the image is copyright-free. --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Well, you're right, apparently I was mistaken in the choice of license. Now I have changed the license to: "work of the US federal government." I hope that now we have come to a consensus. :) Pollux 312 k (talk) 21:57, 16 Ogst 2011 (UTC)
- Remains the question whether "Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Crockett Farnell" has the authority of US federal government. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - credited to Dr. Joan Wood, nothing indicates that this is a federal employee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- She died 3 weeks ago[2]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- So copyright would transfer to Dr. Wood's heirs or executor, and could conceivably be licensed CC with some digging? --Lexein (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Provided the digging yields to evidence. --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- So copyright would transfer to Dr. Wood's heirs or executor, and could conceivably be licensed CC with some digging? --Lexein (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Entrance architecture that passes threshhold of originality, located in France which has no FoP provisions. Not de minimis. Warfieldian (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work as indicated or a derivative work based on File:Somalia_ethnic_grps_2002.jpg, but version of that file from a different date that is not properly attributed. KinuP (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple text/shape. ■ MMXX talk 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? --GinoKolle (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the logo is not simple enough to be ineligible for copyright, also you've chosen a wrong license. ■ MMXX talk 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Slightly worried about the permission on this one - the accompanying text says "explicitly for Wikipedia", and I'm wondering if the uploader realised that anyone could use it. This was the uploader's only contrib, and from 6 years ago, so unlikely that he's reachable. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
and other colleges photoss by Ramesh Ramaiah (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Info I've found the same image with the same resolution posted on 2010 on that page, by an user with another username. The Terms of use page of that website indicates: "The articles, tutorials, projects and other ocntent on this site is copyright of the site and its authors. You may read, download and use the published content for your personal and educational use. The content may not be used for commerical purposes and may not be re published without prior written permission from us." --Myrabella (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Denniss (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
pomylona nazwa osiedla Wojtekskalski (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: If you would like to rename this file, please use {{Rename}}. Wknight94 talk 03:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Awful rendition of a head. 134.76.106.31 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
redundant to File:Orange-press Logo.png, which is created from this file by converting to png (lossless). In a second file version transparency was added. The jpg is not needed anymore as the first png version has all the infomation. Saibo (Δ) 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 19:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Digital alterations by Jacobfrid
[edit]- File:Carrowmore, Tomb, Sligo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cork,County,Hall22.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These files are derivatives of File:Carrowmore tomb Ireland.jpg and File:CorkCountyHall.JPG. In both cases, the original sky was digitally substituted by another sky which is noisy and comes with dust spots. The uploader substituted in en-wp the original files by his altered variants but this was subsequently contested and currently none of his altered variants continues to be used. I do not see why we should keep these inferior alterations here at Commons as they do not appear to be useful and are thereby out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Z interactive
[edit]- File:1.6 125 hp Duratec Ti-VCT in C-Max.jpg
- File:BMW M3 GTS ENGINE.jpg
- File:BMW m3 pickup.jpg
- File:BMW M3 dashboard.jpg
- File:BMW M3 dashboard.jpg - http://www.thecarconnection.com/image/100005285_2002-bmw-cs1-concept
- File:Bmw xActivity.jpg
- File:Bmw z07.jpg - http://www.kwyjibo.com/ispeed/nysho98/nysho046.jpg
- File:BMW-concept-gran-coupe-rear.jpg - http://www.otoconcept.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010-BMW-Gran-Coupe-Concept-Rear-Angle-View.jpg
- File:BMW-Vision-ConnectedDrive-Concept-in-Geneva-2011.jpg - http://auto4team.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bmw-vision-connecteddrive.jpg
- File:2011 Ford Focus MkIII 1.6 115hp.jpg
- File:¸2011 BMW 6 F13.jpg
- File:BMW L lights design.jpg
- File:Ford Ecoboost 1.6 150hp.jpg
- File:Ford Duratorq 2.0 115hp.jpg
- File:Focus MkIII straga.jpg
- File:Focus MkIII sprijeda.jpg
- File:Focus MkIII sprijeda 2.jpg
- File:Focus MkIII iznutra.jpg
- File:1.6 Duratec Ti-VCT in Focus.jpg
- File:Interior of MkII Focus.jpg
- File:2010 bmw serije 5 iznutra facelift.jpg
- File:2010 bmw 5 straga.jpg
- File:2009 bmw 5 sprijeda.jpg
- File:2004 bmw 5 straga.jpg
- File:2004 bmw 5 sprijeda.jpg
- File:2004 bmw 5 iznutra.jpg
- File:2011 Chrysler 300.jpg
- File:Fusion 1.6 TDCi.jpg
- File:Fusion 1.25 Duratec.jpg
- File:Fusion 1.6 Duratec.jpg
- File:Fusion 1.4 TDCi.jpg
- File:Fusion 1.4 Duratec.jpg
- File:MkII Ford C-Max interior.jpg
- File:Ford Grand C-Max.jpg
- File:Ford S-Max interior 3rd row.jpg
- File:Ford S-Max inside.jpg
- File:Ford S-MAx interior.jpg
- File:2008 Mondeo interior.jpg
- File:Ford Focus MkII interior.jpg
- File:Ford Sigma 1.4 in MkII Focus.jpg
- File:Ford Duratorq 2.0 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Duratorq 1.8 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Duratorq 1.6 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Duratec ST 2.5 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Duratec HE 2.0 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Duratec HE 1.8 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Sigma 1.4 Focus MkII.jpg
- File:Ford Focus MkIII Race concept at DIAS.jpg
- File:Ford Focus MkIII Electric at DIAS.jpg
- File:Ford Focus MkIII at DIAS.jpg
- File:Ford Focus MkII Control Blade suspension.jpg
- File:Ford Control Blade suspension.png
- File:Ford Focus mkI chassis.jpg
- File:Ford Focus 1 unutrašnjost.jpg
- File:Ford Duratorq 1.8 Focus Mk1.jpg
- File:Ford Focus ST170 engine.jpg
- File:Ford Zeta 2.0 Focus MkI.jpg
- File:Ford Zeta 1.8 Focus MkI.jpg
- File:Ford Sigma 1.4 Focus Mk1.jpg
- File:Ford Sigma 1.6 Focus Mk1.jpg
- File:1.6 Sigma Focus 2.jpg
- File:1.6 Sigma Focus 1.jpg
Small images, possibly taken from random websites, some already deleted as copyvio. ■ MMXX talk 12:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- User also does not respond to any prodding. Not damning in and of itself, but also not a good sign. I doubt the veracity of most of the claims of "own work" stated by this user, who clearly does not comprehend the Wikimedia copyright standards. The user has also had a file deleted for copyright vios in Croatian Wikipedia. He also seems to have replaced one deleted file (the Focus MkIII premium console) with another, and then changed the Focus article correspondingly. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- +1 Delete Proof for some picture, suspicious others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Images of Daichi88
[edit]- File:35m.jpg
- File:7m.jpg
- File:27m.jpg
- File:AKI7s.jpg
- File:AKI11.jpg
- File:AKI21.jpg
- File:AKI.jpg
- File:5s.jpg
- File:Mains.jpg
- File:Zous.jpg
- File:Rabits.jpg
- File:Aki2.jpg
The uploader claims they are works by a Japanese painter named AKI (ja:AKI (画家)), but shows no evidence of permission from the painter himself. As for File:Aki2.jpg, date on the photo says "89 7 14" (can be interpreted as 14 July 1989) and it is highly suspicious if the photo has really been taken by the uploader. Yasu (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Files of Schloss Moyland
[edit]| delete requested | substitute | |
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Reason: because we have a new and better reworked version Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- At least "Panorama 2" shows a visible distortion and "pseudocolor" that creates some kind of "old style postcard look". a×pdeHello! 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept no reason to delete, not exact duplicates - Jcb (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Transferred from en:File:Legalthriller.png, based on the watermark on File:Thriller.png which is uploaded by same user at en.wiki en:User:Wiggy! I don't think it's own work by uploader either. ■ MMXX talk 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Searched at google:images for a similar .png file but didn't find any. The white line artifacts could also be something else than a watermark. Should it be a watermark it could also be a rework based on a watermarked image created by Wiggy!. I assume good faith and - by the way - the right thing before nomination and deletion is always getting in touch with the author on his talk page. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; images with obvious watermark artifacts are suspicious and require at least an assertion from the uploader that the source images are free of copyright. Powers (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
An image with similar size already published elsewhere by a person with a similar name to the uploader, a simple permission would not be enough as this is a derivative work, uploader should provide sourse information for the background image where it confirms they are free. ■ MMXX talk 22:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Upon request, the original uploader has provided a new version of the file where the background image has been replaced by a trivial design. In my opinion, this has solved the problem and the present image may be kept. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we can keep this new version and only delete the old version. ■ MMXX talk 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Please go ahead if you can. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we can keep this new version and only delete the old version. ■ MMXX talk 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the new version Jcb (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
advert text-only claim Saibo (Δ) 23:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text file. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and Eugene Ezarateesteban 08:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Wikimedia Commons isn't a porn site. Lack of scientific, educational or artistic goal. File not used. FAP (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It actually shows pegging. Providing actual photographic images of things is generally considered necessary to educationally illustrate a subject, and there are Wikipedias that use photographs to illustrate sexual practices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that this is the only photograph in Category:Pegging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned by Prosfilaes, there are other photos (such as Category:Pornographic_shows) to show sexual acts. Since this is the only photo depicting pegging, it should be kept for educational purpose. Commons:Nudity states that "If a file depicts some phenomenon or circumstance which we do not already have representations of... then it should be kept, as it adds to the educational content of Commons." Handcuffed (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - It is absolutely true, that there is no reason for keeping this picture. It is pure pornographic. A neutral picture to illustrate the subject is File:Pegging cropped.jpg, which can by no means be considered pornographic. So please delete this picture for we got better ones and this is a menace for children surfing Wikipedia. --Memnon335bc (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Commons (this is not Wikipedia) is not not censored for the protection of the children.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is doing things because one has to and there is doing something because one knows it's right. Interesting to notice, that noone answers on the point, that there are neutral and much more encyclopedic illustration on the topic, which are already existing ... no need for the porn. --Memnon335bc (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then there's doing something because one is sure one's provincial morality is universal. Drawings don't replace photographs for illustrations; photographs are almost universally preferred to drawings in Wikipedia, and by some Wikipedias even in the field of sexuality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And that is exactly you're private opinion and preference. To protect children and persons under a specific age before pornography is absolutely no matter of morality. --Memnon335bc (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then there's doing something because one is sure one's provincial morality is universal. Drawings don't replace photographs for illustrations; photographs are almost universally preferred to drawings in Wikipedia, and by some Wikipedias even in the field of sexuality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We have few if any other images of pegging, and this IS educational in my mind. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
pornograpy 82.55.162.179 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept -mattbuck (Talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Non encyclopedic Elie Hague (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, speedy. It's in use on Wikipedia, and this is the same argument made in the other DRs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: No new arguments, in use on Wikipedia and therefore encyclopaedic. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep image to illustrate the Wikipedia article of pegging. That's why I also created this cropped version. --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep; 4th nomination, absolutely nothing new.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy kept Human sexuality is within project scope; listed and kept repeatedly in the past. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Besides being low-quality (pixelated), the uploader deliberately cut off the copyright statement that was watermarked on the image (see original). howcheng {chat} 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Cropping the watermark is not a copyright-related issue Ben.MQ (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I remoninate the file. The watermark strongly suggest that this photo is not the work of an U.S. Forest Service employee but a photo created (and copyrighted) by someone else, used on the Forest Service website as a courtesy image. The photo is not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I was not clear enough in my original nomination. I thought the copyright issue would be obvious once you looked at the original image. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - copyright Amy L. Reid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)