Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
File:Thalwil_-_Sogenanntes_Jenny_Schloss_mit_Nebenbauten,_Mühlebachstrasse_51b_2011-08-29_16-38-20.JPG
[edit]No evidence was given that this sculpture is in the public domain (no title, date, or author). One can only speculate based on its style and/or deterioration. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose as the statue is on a public (not private etc.) square within the Swiss municipality of Thalwil, here situated, thus imho "fop". 84.75.160.122 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: My mistake. There is FOP in Switzerland. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Videos 213.17.183.154 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism? Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
According to COM:FOP#Iran, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran, and this is a photo where the primary subject is a building in Iran. Logan Talk Contributions 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tughrul Tower was built in 12th, it is in public domain. ■ MMXX talk 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dabardinho (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, multiple hits in search engines Denniss (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyvio as it seems for all the pictures uploaded by the author. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio Denniss (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The quebec flag was adopted on January 21st 1948 and the design has always legally been the same. File:Flag of Quebec.svg is the SVG file of the Quebecois flag. Delete ~ Fry1989 eh? 00:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The design was not always the same: for example the flag used on January 21st 1948 had fleurs-de-lys turned towards the center of the flag and it was only later that the present design was established. And the flags i downloaded are designed to show the successive shapes of the fleurs-de-lys in the first decades of the official Quebec flag. I would be very surprised to learn that the present design was established from the start since the present form of the fleurs-de-lys seems to have been made definitive only in the 1980's. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Going to sleep. See you tomorrow afternoon. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like some sources on that, because all of my sources show that the variants with different Fluers-de-lys were proposals, not adopted. Fry1989 eh? 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Quebec Government portal: "The order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of January 21st, 1948, which adopted the official flag of Québec, specified that the fleurs-de-lis be placed in a vertical position, an arrangement more in keeping with the rules of heraldry. It was not until March 9th, 1950 that the legislative assembly gave its approval by adopting the Act respecting the official flag". This means that although there were other versions flying around in public, including those with the Fluers-de-lis pointing inwards, they were not legal. So the Quebec flag has always legally been the same desig, both first from the LG's order, and when it was reaffirmed by the legislature in 1950. Fry1989 eh? 00:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like some sources on that, because all of my sources show that the variants with different Fluers-de-lys were proposals, not adopted. Fry1989 eh? 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Going to sleep. See you tomorrow afternoon. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't contest what you say, and I may have less sources than you, but I want to explain two things:
First, according to this site, when the fleurdelysé was adopted on January 21st 1948, no flag with vertical fleurs-de-lys had been produced, so it was a flag with the previous design that was flown on the Parliament. I cannot be sure, but I bet it is the flag shown in the Museum of Civilization in Québec (see here). Which means that the first official flag of Québec was technically an "illegal" one. The first flag with vertical fleurs-de-lys appeared on February 2nd 1948. But I mentionned this only as an anecdote.
The first heraldic description of the flag was given in April 1949: "D'azur, à la croix d'argent cantonnée de quatre fleurs de lys du même". An heraldic description like this means that you don't have the right to use a vert flag or one with only three fleurs-de-lys, but the exact hue of the background or the breadth of the cross or the shape of the fleurs-de-lys is not precised. (The aspect ratio of 2:3 was decided only in 1968). The flags shown behind Prime Ministers Maurice Duplessis and René Lévesque are not faulty ones used by the public (or so I think) but the legal flag of the time with an unfamiliar look because the details were not standardized yet. It is the same for example with the flag of Scotland which has several files because the blue color was not always the same.
My opinion is that we are both right: the textual description of the flag (in the official documents) remained unchanged but its visual implementation was subject to variations.
Of course, all this would prove to be a misconception if you have sources telling that the fleurs-de-lys had their present form since the beginning. If I made a mistake, I will not perseverate.
But even if I was totally wrong, the files I uploaded would still be valid as examples of unofficial variations on the flag of Québec and I don't think there would be a reason to ask for their deletion. Only a modification of the description line would be needed. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree to a rename and change of description. Having other versions isn't a problem. Fry1989 eh? 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be ok with a more vague name like "Drapeau_du_Québec_(style_1960's).svg" (Flag of Quebec in the style of the 1960's) ? Ec.Domnowall (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I think that would be fine. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. And renamed. Geagea (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Move to File:Ostra woman bow.jpg; I meant bow, not bonnet Handcuffed (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Moved. Yann (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
error JMCC1 (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong format Emilymiaka (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong picture Emilymiaka (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader :
- Алый Король (talk · contribs)
flickr profile state : "I'm 49, not married, and I live in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA," .. how could he be the photographer of a photo in 1959 ? This account posted many old photos, and i doubt he's the author.
If this image is deleted, i would advice adding this flickr account http://www.flickr.com/people/johnmcnab/ to the black list of flickr bots. --Lilyu (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Copyvio. Photo by Sam Lévin (1904-1992). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Unknown person. Out of scope. Joxemai (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope spamming Nolispanmo 12:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam. Yann (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
test file WikedKentaur (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request mickit 15:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The quebec flag was adopted on January 21st 1948 and the design has always legally been the same. File:Flag of Quebec.svg is the SVG file of the Quebecois flag. Delete Fry1989 eh? 00:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Fry1989 eh? 00:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drapeau du Québec 1960's.svg. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Maintained after renaming request was accepted by Skeezix. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept
Bad quality, superceded by e. g. this. Unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Dutch user uses a cc-by-sa-3.0-nl license for a file found on the internet. I don't see a mention CC-nl or any CC on the given source. Copyright violation ? –Krinkletalk 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Taken from the web. If it's copyrightable, it is a copyvio, but I'm uncertain whether it is, since it consists only of text and a combination of a few simple shapes. Opinions? Dcoetzee (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo, only acceptbale under 'fair-use' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy withdraw , it seems to have been uploaded by an organisation that might have rights Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- That does not even matter, see above. --Leyo 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Luis Carlos Rosales Lobo (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, in facebook pages will be read Facebook © 2011--Motopark (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete, reference picture for the Wikipedia takes Montreal picture hunt. Sorry again. Letartean (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Phenylcyanate.svg. Wampenseppl (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused file. Ed (Edgar181) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Phenylcyanate-synthesis-thermolysis.svg. Wampenseppl (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused file. Ed (Edgar181) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
These two reactions have been split into File:Phenolate-cyanogenhalide-diphenylcarbonimidate.svg and File:Diphenylcarbonimidate-triphenylcyanurate.svg. Wampenseppl (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Definitely improves reusability to have separate files. However, File:Phenolate-cyanogenhalide-diphenylcarbonimidate.svg needs to have the "H+" positive superscripted in step under reaction-two arrow. Also, these svgs perpetuate the use of "plus" in reactions that is nearly illegibly small (probably should be sized to match rest of the text (I think that's the style-guide standard?) or at most one notch smaller). DMacks (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused file. Ed (Edgar181) 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Diphenylcarbonimidate-triphenylcyanurate.svg. Wampenseppl (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused file. Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Phenolate-cyanogenhalide-diphenylcarbonimidate.svg Wampenseppl (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, unused file. Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. 141.84.69.20 21:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal & promotional art works, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Not clear from the data provided that the image is licensed as described. Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- And also:
- Uploaded by one user, photographed on different cameras, studio logo on files - doubtful authorship, license. --Art-top (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dining.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klassic.jpg. --Art-top (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Promotional photo made with cell phones? You ruined my day. I expected at least a Leica ;). delete, duck test, even if the photos themselves were acceptable - the non-free logo is too big, removing it will cut too much space. NVO (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
advertising of an Ukrainian lawyer Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Rarely I have to agree with the nominator, delete, sadly, what a LOL of a photograph. Beautiful. It will make a perfect illustration of some articles ... but this use will be clearly demeaning the subject. NVO (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Commons is not a place to advertise. Missvain (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 01:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Larger version published her in 25 Jun 2009. Geagea (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.spainisculture.com/export/sites/cultura/multimedia/galerias/museos/casa_leon_castillo_ccaa02.jpg_1306973099.jpg Yann (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Brimz (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have contacted the uploader to ask if he has an e-mail confirming the licence, but he hasn't. He will now contact GasTerra Flames to ask again. ZanderZ (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Berthold Werner (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, seems to have been taken from here and has been published elsewhere too. Missvain (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution image, no EXIF data. The uploader is not likely to be the author of this image Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It´s not good Christian Sellés (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - full resolution is fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded a much better photo so I dont think this image will serve any purpose. The replacement image is File:Washington_Dulles_International_Airport_at_Dusk.jpg. I am the author of both images Jovian Eye storm 11:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a reproduction of a picture on a sign (see upload history), and therefore probably unfree NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The image is fine. It's a public picture of the museum and there are no informations that it is under any kind of copyright. Your adjective "probably" does not seem enough of a reason to push for a deletion.--Fezz5555 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: FOP OK in Croatia. Yann (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The licensing of this image is totally bullshit. This person does not own this thing, did not create it, and therefore can not distribute it as share-alike. On top of that I do not think that people can simply upload "photos" of other images, especially those which are not free. LAz17 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous closure, see Commons:FOP#Croatia - Jcb (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Image is from a recently created fake Flickr account containing only suspected copyvios. Damiens.rf 14:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fake Flickr licensing. --viniciusmc (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Image is from a recently created fake Flickr account containing only suspected copyvios that are uploaded here minutes after being uploaded there. Damiens.rf 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fake Flickr licensing. --viniciusmc (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Image is from a recently created fake Flickr account containing only suspected copyvios that are uploaded here minutes after being uploaded there. Damiens.rf 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Fake Flickr licensing. --viniciusmc (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Probable personal artwork of unknown author ; no description ; no use Civa (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Show me the exif. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
What is unseen in Category:Penis on this image? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is not an amateur porn site, more than enough of these.--Hold and wave (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
- Delete Per Hold and wave Missvain (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Jevitron (talk · contribs): No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all as copyright violations --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It might be their own work, or might not be, but, it appears to me more like promotional material. Missvain (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 15:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 15:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - photo of the sea, beach and hotel complex => Commons:De minimis. --Sporti (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 15:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - photo of whole complex => Commons:De minimis. --Sporti (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Portorož main coastline as seen from the sea, architecture is de minimis.— MZaplotnik (my contribs) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 16:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - photo of the sea, beach and hotel complex => Commons:De minimis. --Sporti (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Sophus Bie (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope + attack description --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It's hideous and, apart from a big number of stolons, doesn't show much. la la means I love you ¤ messages 18:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"It's hideous and, apart from a big number of stolons, doesn't show much." falls under "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." la la means I love you ¤ messages 07:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep There's no need to reopen a just closed DR for something like this. And can you tone down your signature a little?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Still no valid reason for deletion. Courcelles (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 18:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- No Problem in Germany. The picture was taken from the street. --Richard Huber (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Slovenia. 84.61.156.142 18:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Slovenia does abide by the Freedom of Panorama.
Earnest B (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit in den Ländern Europas
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg.){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - photo of the park with hotel => Commons:De minimis. --Sporti (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bogus PD rational, the file is not public domain in its country of origin, therfore the reason not complies with COM:L. Also the video footage likely is not from this San Marino website but possibly from the Italian press, for example teleromagna. Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I upload this photo, and I want delete this file because for my private reasons. Sasan Geranmehr (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per request. Missvain (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Including
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) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and teeny tiny. Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems it was scanned from some book. Trycatch (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete While it appears to be an artwork "possibly" in PD, it does appear scanned, has no description or relevant information, either. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo of not notability site. Art-top (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in an a now deleted en.wikipedia article, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 08:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by PV116 (talk · contribs). Historical photos. May be in public domain but relevant information is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
its down on a freeish license but thats not reflected on the website and its dubious a commercial site wouldn't protect their logo! Spartaz (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request artwork includes drawing to which rights can be protected -Czonek (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FOP? --Crusier (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is clear from the first version of this that it is a photograph of an outdoor sign, therefore FOP applies Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Club created in 1984 but no assertion that the logo was even made then. Also it has not been more than twenty-five years have elapsed since the year of the author's death and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This picture was intended for an article about Marcel Hudima. 1) This article is deleted from the fr-wiki, en-wiki, ru-wiki, tr-wiki (not notability person, PR). 2) As I remember, this image was deleted earlier under a different name (see the removed contribution of the user and this discussion). Art-top (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Also really poor quality. No need to keep this on Commons. Missvain (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Annoyingly, won't be PD for another four months, as the author died in 1941. It should be undeleted then. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - who cares? 1886 publication! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: added Category:Undelete in 2012]] Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- FOP applies. This model has been installed permanently by the management of Lotte town at the 10th floor (a second model at 11th floor in the cafe of Sky Lounge) of the Lotte Department Store, part of Lotte Town, until the completion of Lotte Tower, at least for next 5 years to inform citizen and visitors of Busan about this project. Brücke-Osteuropa (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „bleibend“ may help. Objects in display cases are not considered as free in general, even if shown for undefined duration. 5 years in an interior (not even on the street) will not be enough. - A.Savin 05:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the discussion of time is irrelevant -- there is no FOP at all in South Korea Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object. Seems not to be installed permanently in the place where the image was taken. No FOP applies. A.Savin 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is not the copyright holder and I do not see where the state of Kansas has allowed its use under the uploader's claim. In fact, they state that it is copyrighted. ..and "Any unauthorized use of this information is forbidden and subject to criminal prosecution."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Commons by a mistake. This is a statue and there is no freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. But now it is on Commons I suggest we discuss if it is eligible for copyright (it is rather simple). MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There's little originality here. Its a borderline case. But its up to the community to decide. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 08:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The image used to belong to a deleted article. There was a request to have it moved into userspace rather than having it deleted. As it will hopefully be restored and the reasons for deletion sorted out the logo will still be used. Personally I fail to see any good will in the arrogance of editors or administrators who start to delete articles and files without actually considering the requests of people who are not that experienced. RadekC15 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If this was in fact created from scratch by User:RadekC15 out of his own mind (as he claims in the image description), then it probably does not meet our requirements for notability and usefulness and this DR is correct. If, on the other hand, User:RadekC15 copied it from an organization's logo, then it may be useful, but it is probably a copyvio. So, either way it should be deleted. I am not doing that today in order to give User:RadekC15 a chance to respond. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: probably be a copyvio, in doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Simtropolitan (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Source issues as this image comes from the UMass Special Collections, though this photo was taken 100 years ago, it is not in the public domain as it was not previously published until by the archives only, other, published, public domain versions may or may not exist. This does not apply to items from the collections that were ineligible for copyright (e.g. signatures) but photos are not in this exception.--Simtropolitan (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - several prints would have been made, and changed ownership, which constitutes publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- such as these [1] [2] [3] (same photo but different setting) or this (not exactly but close). Only this has clear date though. Several books published his similar portraits in the 19th-20th centuries, but I haven't got access. Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Some of the statements above are incorrect, see File:PD-US table.svg -- the image was made before 1886. If it was
- first published before 1923 -- PD
- first published after 1977 -- PD (pma 70 years or, if author unknown, 120 years after creation)
- first published 1923 - 1977 with notice and renewal -- unlikely, but still in copyright.
- I'm inclined to believe it was either first published in the 1880s, or, as Simtropolitan believes, recently, which gives us PD.
- Pieter's assertion that a few copies constituted publication under the pre-1978 law is not correct. Giving a few copies to friends and family was not publication.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Inapplicable public domain tag; there is no reason a photograph of a building would not be copyrightable in the U.S. Further, the source link says it was published in 1924, so PD-US also has not been shown to apply. Postdlf (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - almost inconceivable that this would have been copyrighted, and renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily...I don't think we upload anything based on those presumptions, and it certainly is copyrightable contra the uploader's license tag. BUT...I found a scan online of the original publication[4] and as best as I can tell it looks like it was published without a copyright notice, which would make it PD-US. If I am correct on that, then I withdraw this deletion request. Postdlf (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Pieter Kuiper Missvain (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be posted as a newer revision to the original file. Jozeppy26 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The original file should be kept as is. It is better to have the alternative version in a separate file. Leyo 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
De facto duplicate of Methane-CRC-MW-dimensions-2D.png. Unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Two different images. And the deletion request a de facto duplicate of the first one. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The only difference I see is that this one has an incorrectly drawn bond (direction of the hashed shape), whereas the in-use replacement has this mistake corrected. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- True, according to IUPAC the small end have to point to the stereo center, in that case the carbon atom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Files by JaQueeta
[edit]- File:Parvati and Shiva.jpg (see e.g. [5])
- File:Shiva saving Markandeya.jpg (many websites, see e.g. [6])
- File:Shiva Parvati Ganesha.jpg (see e.g. [7] under page [8])
- File:Abirami Devi.jpg (apparently copied from [9], reading "BELONGS TO AMMAN PHOTO")
- File:Abirami.jpg (apparently copied from [10] under page [11])
![[7]](http://www.nitaigaura.xpg.com.br/shiva_family.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://ssbsathya.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/abiramii.jpg){kind=link}
These drawn works of various Hindu deities, besides having wide variation in style, are pre-existing on various websites (see above). The uploader's claims to have created them themselves are obviously untrue. Also unlikely to be old enough to be public domain (but no date information is available). I've deleted at least two already after clearly identifying the original web source. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The third one was published by JB Khanna, it is also signed (but I cannot quite make out the artist's name). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Mystery Science Theater 3000 fan sculptures by Tyrantulas
[edit]- File:Crow T. Robot - Signed by Trace Beaulieu and Bill Corbet.png (compare screenshot [12])
- File:Tom Servo - Signed by Kevin Murphy.png (compare screenshot [13])
![[12]](http://mst3k.wikia.com/wiki/File:Crowsolo.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://mst3k.wikia.com/wiki/File:Servo8.jpg){kind=link}
Although the uploader did in fact build and photograph these sculptures, they are based on a copyrighted character design by the producers of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (linked above for comparison). Although they are actual robots, it is clear that their appearance is not driven by their functional purpose (rather it was driven by the desire to appear as similar as possible to the characters in the show), and so the appearance is separable. The fact that actors from the show signed the pieces and liked them does not indicate a legal release, permission, or license (even if they were the copyright holders, which I'm not sure they are). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This article had web sourced images for years that were clearly in violation of Wikipedia's image policy. I simply added photos that I took, of replicas that I made, and released them freely for anyone to use. Considering that articles like the one for the Chevrolet Corvette are simply "fan photos" taken of the actual car, why are these two photos being targeted? The Wikia photo linked above is from an official press pass that the wikia author has no permission to have posted there... so how does it make sense to want to post it here? Tyrantulas (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The difference is that a Corvette is "utilitatian" as defined by copyright law and does not have a copyright. These are sculptures and both these pieces and the work they are copied from do have copyrights. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Replaced by File:大禹治水圖.png, unused image. Shibo77 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the original, delete the derivative. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as the source image of the derivative work. Rosenzweig τ 14:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Replaced by File:Xiajie.png, unused image. Shibo77 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep original, delete the derivative. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as the source image of the derivative work. Rosenzweig τ 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Own work? Berthold Werner (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - why wouldn't it be? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't it look like a scan from a magazine? Perhaps I'm wrong. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it does, there is no raster at full resolution. The dynamic range may indicate a scan of a print, but that is what most people do to upload their own old photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Peter Missvain (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader does not say that this and File:Ilze Rubene.jpg are his own work -- just that they are scanned from his own archives. I think we need need clarification before keeping them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you blind? Look at the source and auther field. What more do you want? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be serious, Pieter. How many new users have we had who have scanned a couple of photos that they own (but did not actually take) and uploaded them here as "own work"? If this user had uploaded a lot of images, no problem, but this one has uploaded only two. I'd like User:Uldis s to say that he is the photographer, if that is true. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Arbitrary criteria. The administration of Commons is such a joke. If this place were serious, it would only accept own work of identifiable contributors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, I wonder, since you think Commons is such a joke and the people here are not worthy of any respect, why do you give so much time to Commons? Your global edit count is more or less double mine, so I can guess that you have many more than a thousand hours into the project. I've defended you several times in the past month and every time that I do, you come back and make me wonder why I bother. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Arbitrary criteria. The administration of Commons is such a joke. If this place were serious, it would only accept own work of identifiable contributors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be serious, Pieter. How many new users have we had who have scanned a couple of photos that they own (but did not actually take) and uploaded them here as "own work"? If this user had uploaded a lot of images, no problem, but this one has uploaded only two. I'd like User:Uldis s to say that he is the photographer, if that is true. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The file is now at File:Anda Safranska.jpg. Kept for now, but tagged as missing permission along with the other image mentioned; I will send an e-mail to the uploader to notify him. Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg.&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg.&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate with File:Apobates race (1) - Getty Villa Collection.jpg. Dorieo (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg.){kind=link}
Deleted 16:51, 3 September 2011 by Foroa, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg.){kind=link}