Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Intentionally disruptive image: it is not of the purported subject and is being used for disruptive purposes (vandalism) on the English Wikipedia C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)- Speedy Delete copyvio that I believe has been deleted before.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Uber awesome promotional photo of goth band. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep Could be used in context with Gothic. Can't see a valid reason for deletion. PS: "Über" and not "Uber". -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tagged with no permission - will be deleted after seven days if no valid permission is received Denniss (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Source clearly says the image is credited to Lockheed Martin so not the work of the US government MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Denniss (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that the original image version was released by DARPA, United States Department of Defense, hence the PD-USGov licensing should be correct. --Enemenemu (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- As the image was not created by US Government personnel the deletion is justified - it does not count wo publishes an image somewhere, it counts who made the image. --Denniss (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure this image is free... Adobe Photoshop in EFIX data and file can be found elsewhere (for example, here and here, with a watermark). Who made this statue? Mathonius (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can we just delete it for now, I was in haste uploading a photo. Scorpion prinz (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy. Per request of uploader and possible copyvio. Trijnstel (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Because there is clearly an error in the title, which should read only : "endobutton 02-fr.svg" . Once .svg is quite enough. Trassiorf (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I've renamed the file to File:Endobutton 02-fr.svg and informed the nominator. Mathonius (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep : How do you remove the {{Delete}} on the renamed page, as well as the present section ? I presume I cannot do it by myself, just by editing them out. Trassiorf (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Endobutton 02-fr.svg, deleted redirect. a×pdeHello! 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Gradanin (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copyrighted Ergeirgfd (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copyrighted Ergeirgfd (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
this image is at http://www.stupidnothings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/male_Self_pleasure_.jpg since 2011-07-13 (HTTP modified), 2009-07 (URL). Is this really own work? Self photographed? Furthermore the quality is rather low. Saibo (Δ) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, taken from elsewhere, and I'm sure (since this Commons, after all ;) we have better content related to this subject that is better quality. It's also been orphaned since upload! ... Missvain (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see video (although it seems to be intended src="mé vlastní video") with firefox (3.6) or vlc. MediaWiki does also recognize it as "audio". we could keep it as a bad quality recording of some (to be identified) bird chirp chrips ;-)
ogginfo Male_masturbation.ogg
Processing file "Male_masturbation.ogg"...
Note: Stream 1 has serial number 0, which is legal but may cause problems with some tools.
New logical stream (#1, serial: 00000000): type vorbis
Vorbis headers parsed for stream 1, information follows...
Version: 0
Vendor:
Channels: 2
Rate: 44100
Nominal bitrate not set
Upper bitrate not set
Lower bitrate not set
Vorbis stream 1:
Total data length: 786494 bytes
Playback length: 1m:25.286s
Average bitrate: 73,773962 kb/s
Logical stream 1 ended
No Video stream included in this ogg. --Saibo (Δ) 02:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If I maybe so blunt..unless this is some new "thing", I do believe this should be deleted ;-) Missvain (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm pretty sure there is a guy masturbating in the audioclip, it's just quieter than the birds. Of course, I have no idea why we would want extremely low quality audio of a guy jerking off - and for that matter, I'm totally confused as to why I sat here and listened to that trying to figure it out. Delete. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Fan collector. Almost sure that the Picasa uploader is not the photographer. Giro720 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope, anyway. Missvain (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Scope. Queeg (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ninnnnteeddooooooo! ;) Missvain (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FOP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.194.162 06:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep because of this. --Amga (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Flickr license is verified, but the sources of the flickr images is in question. All individual images have been taken from different spots of the en:Wankhede Stadium per the angles of the photographs suggesting that they weren't taken by a spectator (who are all restricted to specific sections duiring the match and prize distribution) unless individual images are shown to be available in the appropriate licenses, the precautionary principle should apply. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete It's pretty clear that the individual photos are of a TV screen (see the odd stripes) and therefore breach copyright. Nev1 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Arent the individual images sufficiently low resolution that it can be freely used, noting that it was supposedly snapped from a tv screen? (Also please note that I share my ip with the original uploader) Suraj T 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's still an infringement of copyright. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_1961_r.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
- keep: It is an Tv screen photos ,the resolution is low and it as no copyright problem, then what is the problem to keep this image. Is there any problem for you or in this image. Ksanthosh89 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, there most certainly is a copyright problem. If you don't understand why, please read COM:DW. De Minimis doesn't apply since the entire composite is made out of copyvios. 99of9 (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship, no description, file can be found all over the Internet. Mathonius (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as an obvious copyright violation. Σ (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope (this is a map of a paper route). Mathonius (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Toen ik deze afbeelding uploadde (als Trojan), beweerde ik dat ik deze had gemaakt bij een proef. Het is echter niet waar. Hij is afkomstig van een cd-rom en er zit derhalve copyright op. Ik had hem alleen gedraaid en gespiegeld... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ischa1 (talk • contribs)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not uploader's own work, as painting is identified in "fr:Marcel Lagasse" as by that Belgian artist. Work is copyrighted as the article states that Lagasse died in 1974 (Belgium applies 70 pma). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Image taken in private location of identifiable person with no model consent as needed. See Commons:PEOPLE. Flickr account closed. The image was taken in 2004 and uploaded in 2008 to Flickr and Commons. The gap in time raises extra concern that the model might not agree to have the image published with a free license even though she clearly consented to the photograph. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Many other pictures from the same Flickr account. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)- Delete Per nom --Hold and wave (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment What about just croping the image? This would address the concern raised above. --Leyo 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I weighed the various options for how that we should approach hosting this image on Commons. As a general rule, images we upload should be appropriately licensed by the uploader with the license agreed upon by the person holding copyright, and the people in the image agreeing to the upload. This is needed for legal reasons, as well as common courtesy. It takes on a greater importance if the people in the image could be exploited if the image was uploaded without their consent. Since the person in the image has personality rights that could easily be violated with unauthorized use of this image we have a moral and legal obligation to ensure that that consent was given for the upload. In this particular instance, cropping this image might remove her identity from a version, but does not remedy that issue that she did not agree to have her naked body used in commercial publications. Commons can make an exception in a few rare cases when there is a strong reason to have an image in our collection, and it is reasonably likely that the person gave consent for the upload, or that the person in the image could not suffer any damages, and someone re-using the image could not suffer any damages. This is not possible in this instance because the image was uploaded to another internet site in this version as well as here, so it will be possible to link a cropped version of this image to the person in the larger image. Additionally, there is not strong reason for Commons to to keep another close cropped image of a nipple piercing because it is very replaceable. I hope this explains my thinking about why deletion is needed in this instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave. Missvain (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missvain (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of the best images in Category:Human male urination - it's large, with sharp focus --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfree image from One Piece anime/manga. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfree image from One Piece anime/manga. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfree image from One Piece anime/manga. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfree image from One Piece anime/manga. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no educational value, not used Avron (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 12:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
unused equivalent of File:AlphaGlcanomer.png, but with weird spacing of in-image caption DMacks (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 08:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
L-Glucose structure is incorrect stereochemistry (compare to File:DL-Glucose.svg or the basic definition of L vs D for same name. Was only transiently used in de:Glucose before someone reverted it out as incorrect DMacks (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: True, the shown structure on the right is L-Idose, not L-Glucose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 08:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Scope, use, usefulness and http://www.fesppr.br/site/ where it came from didn't give the appearance of being free to use. Queeg (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright or permission will not be the issue for this file, but seems out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that this file is actually the "own work" of the user who uploaded it. It is widely used online, including on Mr. Nelson's employer's website [1]. 75.197.63.34 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is what I'd call "obvious copyright violation" in my opinion, and it could probably be speedy and not a DR, so for what it's worth Delete. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, not so obvious. The cited website is undated, but is dedicated to a conference in October 15-17, 2009. However, "our" image was uploaded already October 2008. Nevertheless, I have my own doubts about this image. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- May be someone could contact the university: pr@andrews.edu. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, if this image were actually owned by the individual who uploaded it, wouldn't it be logical for them to upload a better resolution version to release it into the public domain than the low resolution version that was uploaded? 75.243.43.230 11:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thats a big clue, this is the size used on websites, making it VERY likely it was just pulled from the web and uploaded. Regardless it needs OTRS as a bare minimum to keep. Otherwise it just needs deleted. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly copyright violation. While this might not matter, it's extremely poor quality and has been orphaned since upload. Missvain (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently meant to be a joke. Outside scope of the project. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
uploaded as own work, but uppears to be a copyvio of http://www.businessreviewindia.in/technology/assets_c/2011/08/Mobile-banking-thumb-250xauto-47058.jpg See also this page. Holyoke, mass (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Was ist der Informationsgehalt dieser Grafik???? Drdoht 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Scope, source, usefulness Queeg (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Picasa uploader is not the photographer nor the copyright holder. This is probably a promotional picture, probably took by Rede Globo at filming location (of the novel). Giro720 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Obvious (c) in frame, no release from Bob White the photographer or his agency. ~ NVO (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missing permission --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Fan collector at flickr. Probably a promotional picture. Giro720 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom! Missvain (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious case of license laudering --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality photograph from a play that the user may have been involved in. Orphaned since upload. Missvain (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Another photo of a play user may have been involved in. Orphaned since upload, one of two contributions made by the editor, ever. Out of socpe, mediocre quality anyway. Missvain (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
User created artwork. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, orphaned image of non-notable individual. Missvain (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A tourist on vacation. Personal image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
mash up with no source, no author, no nothing. Orphaned since upload Missvain (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Extremely small, orphaned image, virtually useless due ot size. out of socpe. Missvain (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal or promotional photo, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion after COM:SCOPE -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: A little confused by your keep. It's a promotional photograph for a non-notable rock band. On the flipside, it's a bunch of men sitting in a bar, appearing like a personal photo. :) Seems rather "out of scope" to me :) Missvain (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not an encyclopedia. It's a collection of free licensed media. "You need a bar with some people sitting around to illustrate something?" Here you have it. It doesn't always need to be a picture of a prominent person. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - image is sourced to a website that does not specify that the images there are compliant with CC-SA 3.0 as the image is licensed. There is no OTRS statement of release. The author, "Mario Schubert", is either not the uploader or can be identified as the uploader. This image is the only action made by the uploader. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Long time orphaned, watermarked, casual snapshop of a backayard. Missvain (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Waternark is not the reason to delete. This image is missing everything, no source, no permission --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope without description George Chernilevsky talk 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded the wrong version and used the wrong license. MyGengo (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Also promotional. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"eigenes Werk" ist nicht glaubhaft Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 17:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
poor quality image, not usable for an educational purpose, out of scope SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Photo of identified unidentified male, not in use hence out of scope Ben.MQ (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
related article is also deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheun (talk • contribs)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
commons not a free host[2] Aberforth (talk | contribs) 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC) fixed — Jeff G. ツ 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, along with File:Steimar.jpg, File:Magikalsword0.1.png, and File:Magikalsword0.2.png. — Jeff G. ツ 18:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - we had exactly the same user page on en.wikipedia. I've just deleted that one Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missvain (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom George Chernilevsky talk 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
estaimagen ya no sirve de nada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauriziogenius (talk • contribs)
- Delete: probably non-free and out of project scope, not being used. Mathonius (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Corbinwilliams (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Wolf - Pidgeon (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Likely to be promo photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Very low resolution, not used anywhere--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by TurpialVenezuela (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
just testing software as a new user 55mallon (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, test upload George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This is Fiat Automobiles press photo, as far I know these are not free photos Typ932 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Uploaded from netcarshow.com, uploader has done this before. Thuresson (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC) gibts ewa weibliche Hoden auch? So ein Nonsens
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave. Missvain (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FOP for sculptures in the US. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.194.162 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Own scan, but I doubt uploader is the real photograph Avron (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"own work" is impossible Avron (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"own work" is impossible Avron (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"own work" is impossible Avron (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"own work" is impossible Avron (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"own work" is impossible Avron (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
bad promotion? questionable author, not used Avron (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
test image for wikipedia? not used Avron (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Test upload. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
no description, no educational value, not used Avron (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This one is used, we can keep it.--Avron (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, very little description, educational value unclear. Mathonius (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, sources unclear, very little description. Mathonius (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This easily exceeds the threshold of originality. Mathonius (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No reasonable educational use - we have many higher quality photos of penises. Commons is not an amateur porn host - and since it's the only contribution by the uploader, that seems to be what this is. for bonus points, calilove95 implies the age of the uploader is questionable. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional advert for a skin cream, uploaded by the company. Missvain (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, noneducational screen shot. Missvain (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If the uploader signs as Lenny Williams (as in here (warning:very long page)), he can't be the author of this photo (+very small size, practically unusable). ~ NVO (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Same uploader also uploaded it to en.wp at en:File:Lenny singig.jpg, with a description note "Author: Debbie Williams, Lenny's wife and manager". So we may have a problem with multiple people sharing an account and definitely a conflict-of-interest author (en:Lenny Williams tagged as such) who doesn't understand the concept of "ownership" of pages. But I think the claim of authorship/ability to release license is valid. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right. They may be right. I'm not convinced. A close person could find better publicity photos (better than a 120px thumbnail). NVO (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If the uploader signs as Lenny Williams (as in here (warning:very long page)), he can't be the author of this photo (+very small size, practically unusable). ~ NVO (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Same uploader also uploaded it to en.wp at en:File:Lenny singig.jpg, with a description note "Author: Debbie Williams, Lenny's wife and manager". So we may have a problem with multiple people sharing an account and definitely a conflict-of-interest author (en:Lenny Williams tagged as such) who doesn't understand the concept of "ownership" of pages. But I think the claim of authorship/ability to release license is valid. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right. They may be right. I'm not convinced. A close person could find better publicity photos (better than a 120px thumbnail). NVO (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as claimed: low resolution, low quality, heavy image manipulation. 62.76.41.63 07:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Previously deleted file. Taken from an all rights reserved internet site (see bottom of source page). Must be speedied. E4024 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, though the deleted one has been a different image. --Achim (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF but with transmission code, most probably not an "own work" as claimed. E4024 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not remember if this is the same image as before, but the uploader is always the same and has already been blocked, I guess for this behaviour. --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Photograph of a copyrighted poster/logo that fails de minimis SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that this image is ineligible for copyright and should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}. However, I would like to have a second opinion on this. ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not even close to a delete -- it's {{PD-textlogo}} -- there is nothing but seven Roman letters. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
related article is also deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheun (talk • contribs)
- Keep: although this is an uploader's request for deletion of his or her own image, I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Mathonius (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This is supposedly the flag of a political organisation, hence the it is doubtful that the uploader holds copyright for it, and it therefore unable to release it into the public domain russavia (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Superiour version in higher resolution with better colours available File:Kolaburdur.jpg Jabbi (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Because the title is clearly in error : it should be renamed "endobutton 01-fr.svg" , Just once .svg is enough Trassiorf (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: same image as File:Endobutton 01-fr.svg. Mathonius (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
this file has been replaced by a better image ie., File:JBritton.JPG. Reginald gray (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, not in use, there is a replacement (also from 1957). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ |reason-because this file has been updated by better image ie, JBritton.JPG |subpage-File:Jocelyn Britton actressP1010076.JPG |day=27 |month=May |year= 2010
Kept: The two drawings are not the same; our usual practice is to keep both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The chemical structure of quercetin at the bottom is incorrect - it is missing a hydroxy group. One of the atom labels in structure 7 is messed up and unreadable. There are text overlaps near structure 5 that are unreadable. The file is too low resolution and there is too much whitespace. ChemNerd (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No reasonable use as-is. No prejudice to someone redoing it to be correct in content (and hopefully improved quality as well) obviously. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Small picture, but with good resolution. Probably took by the company itself: http://www.muffato.com.br/Lojas/G/219.jpg Giro720 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. 84.62.194.162 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FOP for comic characters in the US. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.194.162 14:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the character that's the problem, it's the costume depicting the character. I agree it's problematic, unfortunately. Powers (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, (c) Disney --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Diesen Screenshot hatte ich hochgeladen, um zu zeigen, wie die Infobox auf meinem Monitor aussieht. Das Bild wird inzwischen nicht mehr gebraucht und soll deshalb gelöscht werden. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture available here, by another user, since July 2009 (at least) Giro720 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture a few days ago for the article, Paul Martin (illustrator). It shows a boy going down a water slide and is of quite poor quality, and should therefore be deleted. Besides, I uploaded today to the mentioned article a much better quality picture to replace it. See the fourth and last picture in the article (boy eating dessert/lunch). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a cover of a popular magazine that's in the public domain. There's no reason to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia can keep it, but, it's not like a rare copy. Some bigger libraries still have this old issue in their storage area. I doubt anyone would place this poor quality photo in any article. Its only use would be for reference purposes. JimPercy (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Widely-used image from product packaging for a burglar mask. See, for instance, 1000x1000 pixel version of image at http://www.costumestore.com/p-14886-burglar-half-mask-costume-masks.aspx Powers (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- By "widely used", I mean on the Internet; it's all over the place. But I'm confident in stating that it originally came from the manufacturer of the mask. Powers (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason tu put this text as image, s.a. en:Critical_Environment_Construction, out of COM:SCOPE#. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong image corresponds to the species Dasyprocta fuliginosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petruss (talk • contribs)
Kept: Moved file to File:Dasyprocta fuliginosa.jpg -- do not use {{Delete}} when you should use {{Rename}} please. A bad name is not a reason to delete a file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This photo is under copyright please delete it. - Livemusic (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The image isn't free. Attribution from source refers to a quote following the image, not about the image itself. The image is from a larger painting of London Bridge by Peter Jackson OBE used as the cover of "London Bridge: An Illustrated History" also by him and first published in 1974. 212.69.47.251 15:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope:Text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Probably not own work, low resolution, no metadata, see the history of the user Banfield - Amenazas aquí 17:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Architect Giovanni Muzio died only in 1982. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Architect Giovanni Muzio died only in 1982. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This tower was buildt in 1957 : this image is a copyvio, due to the absence of FOP in France
Cette tour a été construite en 1957 ; la photo ne respecte pas le droit d'auteur du fait de l'absence de liberté de panorama en France. Trizek here or on fr:wp 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Nice work, but a possible copyright violation, probably being a derivative work of a movie capture: [3] (or another copy of the same picture). Razvan Socol (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/passion-mother-mary-and-mary-magdeline.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
seems to be a newspaper-scan, so I doubt the license Avron (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
EXIF Dateien wurden nicht gelöscht, Aus Datenschutzgründen soll dies aber geschehen. Nach löschung wird die aktuelle Grafik ohne EXIF Dateien hochgeladen. -Naoag (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that PD-Syria applies according to articles 22 or 23. |EPO| da: 22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Presumeably in public domain as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karen Jeppe with Misak and Hajim Pahsa near Aleppo.jpg |EPO| da: 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that PD-Syria applies according to articles 22 or 23. |EPO| da: 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Article 25 states that photographs are only protected for 10 years. In fact the template is overly conservative in that it also factors in URAA. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I believe article 25 is about different kinds of art. This is not art. --|EPO| da: 11:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- All the more reason then. In some countries, there is a shorter period of protection for photographs that are not considered artistic or not considered works. If article 25 didn't apply because this is not a photographic work of art, then the protection period would be shorter, not longer. But let us look at article 25. It says "Copyrights of photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work.". There is a premise in law that the most straightforward reading of a law is the valid one, unless something else supersedes this. There really is no other way to read this, than photographs are only protected for 10 years. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Presumeably in public domain |EPO| da: 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The link below the PD licence states that it is "Foto vrij van rechten" (Photo free of rights), I do not believe that it is enough to mean it is placed in the public domain. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have emailed the owners of the image and asked them to clarify the situation. I believe they will provide a satisfactory response. PeterEastern (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- I represent the Delft University of Technology who is the owner of this picture. We fully agree that this picture can be used free of rights. We even encourage people to use it. So please do not remove the picture. Joris Melkert, TU Delft, the Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.22.52 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Under these circumstances, we ask that the owner of the copyright chose an explicit license and follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Although this is a minor nuisance, I'm sure you will understand that we have no way of knowing who User:131.180.22.52 actually is, although I can say that he is in Delft, as he says. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I represent the Delft University of Technology who is the owner of this picture. We fully agree that this picture can be used free of rights. We even encourage people to use it. So please do not remove the picture. Joris Melkert, TU Delft, the Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.22.52 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - being a native NL speaker I can confirm 'vrij van rechten' clearly means 'public domain' - Jcb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Kein Informationsgehalt, keine Verwendung innerhalb der Wiki. Spielwiese? Drdoht 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused file. File:Flag-map of Turkey.svg is more accurate. ~ Fry1989 eh? 04:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The star & crescent in other file is too large IMHO. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is easily changed. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This image was uploaded on top of another image by w:User:Igor koyfman (as you can see from Sreebot's transfer; see the log [4] as well), who never gave the image a license on English Wikipedia. Only the earlier version of the image is license. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AChinese+Scholar%27s+Garden.jpg){kind=link}
- I don't understand the history here. The earlier image has nothing to do with the Chinese Scholar's Garden, so what is it doing in a file with that name? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Image 1 was uploaded to w:File:DSC00636.jpg, 13 October 2006. Image 2 was uploaded to w:File:DSC00636.jpg, 1 October 2007. w:User:Acather96 moved the file to w:File:Chinese Scholar's Garden.jpg [5]. This is difficult to immediately discern on English Wikipedia because I performed a history split [6], with the old version going to a new name. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ADSC00636.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a photograph of Shaguj Baturay, a dancer of NALMES Academic Ensemble of folkdance of Adygheya. Posted in 23 Jan 2007 her. Larger version. Geagea (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong uploading Rmdl2006 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded this photo wrongly. Rmdl2006 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down duplicate of File:CSBN logo.jpg anyway. Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
duplicate of Kumanovo and Skopie chetas IMARO1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Подпоручикъ (talk • contribs)
Info: it's not an exact duplicate of File:Kumanovo and Skopie chetas IMARO1.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicate and also in use Jcb (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from s speedy by uploader for "Änderung durch den Rechteinhaber" and "new Copyright Holder". --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: after release into a free license, you cannot make it unfree again Jcb (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
fout: is niet van mij — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ischa1 (talk • contribs)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no capyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.63.190 (talk • contribs)
- Delete: apparently, the copyright belongs to "Olle Krantz". Mathonius (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an orphaned picture of an logo from a random handball(?) team (see File Commons:Deletion requests/File:SANY0249.JPG of the same user) mabdul 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: btw, 'futsal' = indoor socker, not handball :-) Jcb (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Phenome123456 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the files that where not PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This map is made of nationalistic and propagandistic ideology and meets several criteria for deletion. First it is false data, then it has got nationalistic naming (Macedonia is named Vardarska and the language Bulgar) and it is original research. There is a correct map, here, but the user omits it and makes cross-wiki spamming by replacing the correct one with his imaginative one. There is also one other map of his own, which is very incorrect, it has been nominated as well and shares the same problems. Here is the other file.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-Vardarska.png){kind=link}
Do you mean the FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIJA? According to history and pre-history of 1991, the name of the area called Socialistic Republic of Macedonija and is Yugoslavia internal area not connected with real Macedonians. Prior that 1946, the name was VARDARSKA BANOVINA! According to today, is FYROM or Republic of Skopje. Also the first president of the state FYROM (1991, when the state created) said (Kiro Gligorov - "we are slavs, we have NO connection with Alexander the Great and his Macedonia"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_gjBAhak18
This user that reports MacedonianBoy is propagandist, check his profile and history. He use wiki for paid propaganda, very shame, check similar topics! In some topics they demand data of the state even is not connected or not exist, and in other topics they don't care about official data. Very shame.
'Comment'Some people talk about official censuses but in other topics they don't use official censuses etc example is the same users Future Perfect at Sunrise ☼ and MacedonianBoy ☼, look at: Here (propaganda using wiki? shame)--Meliniki (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep MacedonianBoy seems to have won the edit war on his own ;) --Kramer Associates (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Datei ist fehlerhaft Thkgk (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused duplicate Jcb (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Fines promocionales — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoplasmaKid (talk • contribs)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
File:Karnovich Russian Posts Istoricheskij vestnik 015 1883.pdf is a part of File:Istorichesky Vestnik Vol.XV 1884.pdf and should be deleted. ChVA (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Invented map, no source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pececillo (talk • contribs)
Deleted: without any description completely useless Jcb (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version with sound: File:Tomahawk Walibi 2004 avec son.ogv — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanBono (talk • contribs)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
new version with sound uploaded (see Fouga_Magister_manoeuvre_cergy_2009_avec_son.ogv) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanBono (talk • contribs)
- Info: File:Fouga Magister manoeuvre cergy 2009 avec son.ogv. Mathonius (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Unclear source and author information. Whose work is this photographs? Must be own work by somebody if it was released under a "self GFDL cc-by-sa-3.0"-licence. And the image is not "PD-old-100" 80.187.107.4 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC) The author of the photograph is Miguel Hermoso Cuesta. The author died more than 100 years ago. In any case I would thank a suggestion to change the Permission to upload it
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Unclear source and author information. Whose work is this photographs? Must be own work by somebody if it was released under a "self GFDL cc-by-sa-3.0"-licence. And the image is not "PD-old-100" MiguelHermoso (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) The image was recategorized following the instructions of Wikimedia Commons as source: own and author: Miguel Hermoso Cuesta
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, not likely own work (see watermark) Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- The same photo is being used on [7] and there's no indication on that site that they've released their images. Mathonius (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Église Sainte-Jeanne d Arc Nice.JPG
[edit]
- File:Église st jeanne d arc - Nice - France.jpg should be moved back to English wiki under fair use. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Église Sainte-Jeanne d Arc Nice.JPG
- File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg
- File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc de nuit-large.jpg (maybe send it back to wikipedia fr because there is fair use for monuments at this project). Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC) No fair use I'am afraid as the same picture could be taken during the day. Strictly speaking, the copyright belongs to the person who planned the illumination of the building. Should be sent back to En wiki where it was first uploaded.
- File:NIKAIA-StLambertND-2007-04-28.jpg
- File:NIKAIA-StLambertNB-2007-04-28.jpg
- File:Nice-Jeanne-d-Arc-by-night.jpg (maybe send it back to wikipedia fr because there is fair use for monuments at this project)
- File:Choeur de Ste-Jeanne d'Arc, Nice.jpg
- File:Eglise jeanne d'arc.jpg
Jacques Droz one of the architect is dead in 1955 . There is no freedom of panorama in France, so this image is a copyvio.
Jacques Droz, un des architectes est décédé en 1955. Il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France, donc cette image enfreint le droit d'auteur. --Miniwark (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should all be deleted. Could transfer from English wikipedia be stopped? They were transfered and now deleted then deleted. What a waste of energy! Is there any tool to move it back to en wiki where most came from? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I can e-mail images and sources to anyone who wants to use them as fair-use on a local project Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
duplicate Condor3d (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of which other file? -- Deadstar (msg) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the redirect Jcb (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Mtsky2011
[edit]- File:Big tit.jpg
- File:My asshole.jpg
- File:Open pussy2.jpg
- File:My ass.jpg
- File:Big lips.jpg
- File:Open pussy.jpg
- File:Pussy2.jpg
- File:Close pussy.jpg
- File:Ass in sun.jpg
- File:Tight.jpg
- File:My cunt.jpg
- File:Vulva, swollen with labia engorged and vaginal opening exposed..jpg
- File:Exhibitionism at beach.jpg
- File:Public flashing.jpg
- File:Flashing.jpg
- File:Shaved vulva , exposing labia.jpg
- File:Breast with large aerola .jpg
- File:Enlarged labia.jpg
All images lack permission of those photographed. Blatantly voyeuristic, including images of women in the privacy of what appears their own homes, which is illegal activity in many jurisdictions. The permissions are questionable and all of these lack in educational quality. We have other images that are of better quality that serve educational purposes. COM:PORN, COM:PEOPLE. Please also view: "Resolution:Images of identifiable people. --Missvain (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Instantly, out of process. Some of these images are obviously taken with an extreme zoom from behind a fence. Their continued existence on commons - even just for long enough to have a normal deletion discussion - is incompatible with the values of the Wikimedia movement (and human decency.) If the original uploader provides evidence that the photos were not taken in the incredibly creepy fashion that it appears they were taken in, they can always be restored. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: low quality (self-made?) images, hardly of educational value Denniss (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave. Missvain (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep because, although it's low quality, we don't seem have many images showing all or almost all of the nude male body from the rear (this image, File:Peter Jackson.jpg, File:United States Marines recruiting office 1941.jpg, and File:耳なし芳一（神戸市・須磨寺）Img360a.JPG ). If anyone wants to upload a higher quality nude full-body rear-view image of a middle-aged man, I'd be perfectly content deleting this per Commons:Nudity#New uploads :-) --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete In contrast to your exaamples this nobody-picture is of low quality and sole exhibitionistic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Yikrazuul -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Kramer Associates. To counter Yikrazuul/George C, I honestly don't care if it's exhibitionist or not, that alone is not a reason for deletion. I grant you we do not need people to shove a camera down their trousers, but if we really have no similar images then we should not delete it. Low quality is not a reason for deletion unless it is so low as to be unusable. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Yikrazuul -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave. Missvain (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Hold and wave. No uploads at all at Commons but tries to delete all humans... --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Undel requested: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Rasierter_und_erschlaffter_Penis_-_DSCF8141.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- And done [8] -mattbuck (Talk) 06:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missvain (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, see Category:Anus, human male for many, many other images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion has been given. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. We have plenty of ani already. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Half the rest are either low resolution, out of focus or involve bending over and holding your backside open. This is a good quality image, and if we must delete some anuses it shouldn't be this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Half the rest are either low resolution, out of focus or involve bending over and holding your backside open" I thought the same thing about this image. An anus is an anus. Once you seen a normal white anus you've seen every normal white anus. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having seen several up close, I can say that that is complete rubbish. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I, for one, will admit that I found other things to look at besides anuses, and that I didn't bother to compare. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are really in no place to comment about the similarity of one versus another. There are large ones and small ones, loose ones and tight ones, hairy ones and smooth ones, brown ones and pink ones. If your opinion is that we should delete things simply because you are unable/unwilling to tell them apart, then we are in a bigger mess than I thought. I'm no expert on plants, but if someone who knows more than me tells me that two plants which appear the same to me are actually different, I'll take their word for it, and would not insist we delete all the photos of one because to me they looked like the other one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to the experts, then. :P But I don't think we are in a mess because I can't physically stomach a close comparison. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are really in no place to comment about the similarity of one versus another. There are large ones and small ones, loose ones and tight ones, hairy ones and smooth ones, brown ones and pink ones. If your opinion is that we should delete things simply because you are unable/unwilling to tell them apart, then we are in a bigger mess than I thought. I'm no expert on plants, but if someone who knows more than me tells me that two plants which appear the same to me are actually different, I'll take their word for it, and would not insist we delete all the photos of one because to me they looked like the other one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I, for one, will admit that I found other things to look at besides anuses, and that I didn't bother to compare. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having seen several up close, I can say that that is complete rubbish. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Half the rest are either low resolution, out of focus or involve bending over and holding your backside open" I thought the same thing about this image. An anus is an anus. Once you seen a normal white anus you've seen every normal white anus. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Half the rest are either low resolution, out of focus or involve bending over and holding your backside open. This is a good quality image, and if we must delete some anuses it shouldn't be this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no real interest or use for this photo... -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave. Missvain (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Zostawić - samo życie. Dlaczego mamy zakładać klapki na oczy? --Amid (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.220.103 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Hold and wave's previous pants dropping link. Missvain (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing from Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Project scope has been cited as a valid reason for removing this file. – Adrignola talk 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
unclear who is the copyrightholder. I thint this is pd-old, so licence is wrong Avron (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Polski_myśliwiec_przechwytujacy_LiM_-_5_(produkcji_PZL_Mielec_-_licencja_samolotu_MiG_-_17)_-_1961_r.jpg
[edit]_-_1961_r.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_1961_r.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
uploader is not the author, so copyright is unclear Avron (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete definitely somebody's work of art Pibwl (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
there is an svg version of that file, and we should have only one version of such a map, because it makes maintaing them more easily Antemister (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: existence of vector file is per policy not a valid reason for deletion of a raster file Jcb (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This file has been superseded. Unused. Andrei (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide additional reasons for deletion such as scope, technical errors or not updated with the latest data. Thuresson (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete files simply because they have been superseded. Please tag them with the {{Superseded}} template. --Green Giant (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
there is an svg version of that file, and we should have only one version of such a map, because it makes maintaing them more easily Antemister (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: existence of vector file is per policy not a valid reason for deletion of a raster file Jcb (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
this is a heavily outdated (and low quality) copy the SVG file we already have. Maintenance of several equal maps is nearly impossible, this important and difficult issue should be more centralized Antemister (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed all uses in any languages. It can be deleted now Antemister (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, no need for keeping a png map updated parallel. →AzaToth 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
in a Commons Gallery andon two archive pages. We do not generally delete obsolete maps, merely mark them so that potential users can find the preferred alternative. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)- I've really tried to find any guidelines that defines the decision to not delete obsolete maps. I often feel that obsolete maps makes finding the _real_ map harder due to the forest of obsolete maps hides the non-obsolete tree. →AzaToth 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that they can be a nuisance -- which is one reason we have galleries parallel to very large categories. I may have overstated the case above -- we can certainly delete things that are clearly redundant or of low quality -- cases where they are virtual duplicates of better files. That may be the case here.
- Where it gets tricky is if the map is obsolete not because there is a better version of the same data, but because it is out of date -- for example, it shows East and West Germany. Those maps should not be deleted, although they should have file names that shows their applicability. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Obsolete files are kept for documentary porposes, as often those obsolete files are the source of the new, better version. In other cases, those files should be deleted, in order to have better arranged categories and less work in updating the files. That is the case here: Maintaining of this map virtually ceased after the SVG was created. We do not know if the map shows the situation for a specific date, we do not know if it was already outdated at the date it was updated for the last time. It is not the source for the SVG, because that was created according to en:List of countries by system of government. Creating such maps for 1950, 1960, 1970 and so one is one of my long-term-projects.--Antemister (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- PS: Is anyone able to remove it from the gallery? I do not know how the edit the strange template there.--Antemister (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I have put File:Forms of government.svg in its place in the gallery. I think we can ignore the two archives. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where it gets tricky is if the map is obsolete not because there is a better version of the same data, but because it is out of date -- for example, it shows East and West Germany. Those maps should not be deleted, although they should have file names that shows their applicability. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful educational image. Will people learn that Commons is not a repository of files for Wikipedia, but rather repository of free educational images. The fact that you have removed all uses on Wikipedia, does not mean it will not be useful to sites outside of these projects, and many sites do not work with SVG but use PNG instead. You should use supercedes tag and link to SVG, but keep this version. Beta M (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are automatically created PNG version of every SVG files...--Antemister (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Having thought about this i'm now between Neutral and Very weak keep. If it's kept, the note of supersession should be added on the file's page, making it easy for users of commons. Beta M (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are automatically created PNG version of every SVG files...--Antemister (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR. unused is no argument for deletion. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. --Saibo (Δ) 04:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this image "Out of scope"? Could the people (at least the majority) that nominate this kind of image explain in more than 3 or 4 words. Not in use doens mean out of scope (or will 90% of images get deleted?), private where?. In scope, see categories. Tm (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- InfoThe file April Erotic.JPG that makes part of the same set was nominated to deletion twice and was kepted twice. Tm (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep – Why people don't bother to see the category of related files. Bill william comptonTalk 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus above, it's not out of scope mickit 08:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April_after_!st_act.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - non-identifiable, so the reason for deletion in that DR does not apply. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedykept: disruptive DR. --Leyo 07:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Wife no longer wants her Vulva on display as many other bigger better Vulva's can be viewed at this site Reddog11223 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. The person in the photograph is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Leyo. INeverCry 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the file as a courtesy to the person photographed and in response to the request of the author (as posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aprils safe sex.jpg). odder (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
porno 90.56.130.213 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: "Porno" is not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- In what way is it "out of scope"? It is in the categories "Anus, human female", "Fishnet stockings", and "Female genitalia" and looks to be relevant to all 3. Infrogmation (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive DR (one of a set). unused is no argument for deletion. It is not out of scope - see the categories of the image. --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this image "Out of scope"? Could the people (at least the majority) that nominate this kind of image explain in more than 3 or 4 words. Not in use doens mean out of scope (or will 90% of images get deleted?), private where?. In scope, see categories. Tm (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- InfoThe file April Erotic.JPG that makes part of the same set was nominated to deletion twice and was kepted twice. Tm (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - In what way is this realistically useful for an educational purpose? Does it not fall into "Commons is not an amateur porn site"? --Hold and wave (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can use it for example to show how female genitalia look like when bent over with fishnet stockings around ... Stop wasting out time please. --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In what is this file not realistically useful for an educational purpose? It does not fall into "Commons is not an amateur porn site" because it was kepted in the first deletion with the rationale "Porno" is not a valid reason for deletion." as are all files that are argumented to be "Porn" kepted because that is not a valid reason to delete files. However this file falls into "Commons is not censored". Tm (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept per mattbuck. --Leyo 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April after !st act.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - COM:PEOPLE, the deletion reason given in that DR, is about identifiable people. I do not believe this is identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Mattbuck, 2 previous "Kept" rulings. Infrogmation (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. “As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg” is silly, because the two cases are not comparable at all. Unlike in the other picture, the woman is not identifiable here. --Leyo 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is a great clear photo of my wife's rear, showing nice detail of Aprils anus and her lips..It still doesnt get many views disappointly therefore please delete this photo also ,,,,I can tell under stats she's not get many veiws about 60Reddog11223 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, strange request (if I understand correctly, because not enough people look at it?) not citing any Commons reasons for deletion. Kept in multiple previous del reqs. No legitimate reason to delete offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --Leyo 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Question - Commons doesn't list pageviews. How do you know it's not getting many views? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)- Question - You guys sure about this? I mean, obviously the image has more page views now, but the original uploader asking us to delete the porn he once uploaded should fall under Commons:Courtesy deletions, shouldn't it?LlywelynII (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Courtesy deletions is only a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Really no valid reason for deletion. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- courtesy delete The original uploader requesting its deletion isn't valid? LlywelynII (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- You should know that licenses are non-revocable. --Leyo 00:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation & Leyo. INeverCry 16:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the file as a courtesy to the person photographed and in response to the request of the author (as posted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aprils safe sex.jpg). odder (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep close-up of sexual intercourse, not out of scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings -- Blackcat (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Reddog11223 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This photo shows human sexual intercourse which April is comfortable with and finds very normal act,to be enjoyed as art or erotic , well in scope
- My congratulations! :-)) -- Blackcat (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. --ZooFari 00:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
First: Image is unclear in what it is portraying; first impression was of anal sex, but is instead of vaginal sex. Second: Image is redundant; better quality images of the same sex act are located on the commons. Third: Image is in disuse; File has existed for three years on the commons and is not used within the commons. Fourth: Image is not great quality; though image has a high pixel count the image is not clearly in focus and has a flash glare on the lady's bumb. Fifth: The lady's permission is not visibly given and we are to rely on the uploader's word; uploader may have had permission to own photo but not to share it; due to intimate nature of the photo, attention should be given to the model's current wants for the photo. Sixth (though much less important): Photo is named inaccurately; the subject of the photo is sexual intercourse but the photo is named after the penis in the photo; if the photo followed the name, intercourse would not be necessary. Squishwaste (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We have a limited number of such phoots, and it passes COM:PEOPLE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep First: Per Prosfilaes; Second: Just because that might be better images it doesnt warrant a automatic deletion (and by the way where are those better images there); Third: Not in use is not a deletion reason; Fourth: About model rights see COM:PEOPLE and the first deletion request: Fifth: If it is wrongly labeled, rename it, dont delete it: Sixth: About the flash glare, it can be edited. Tm (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above and block single purpose account User:Squishwaste. --Leyo 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Response (Mainly to Tm) File:Doggy style position.jpg File:Sexwoman on top.jpg First: Fair response, although only one photo is really needed to show one act, and we have several. This image adds only a different camera angle to the mix. If it included something different, ie a toy or pubic hair, it could be considered new subject matter. Second: Two images are to the right that are much more clear in subject matter and are higher quality while maintaining a very similar concept. Third: If we were never to delete old unused images then the site would get severely clogged. This image has had a chance to be used for three years and it seems no person has found it worthy enough to be used for anything other than personal reasons. I understand that on wikimedia the policy is per concensus, and it seems consensus has been to not use the image; if an image has been agreed as not-useful then why should it be kept? Fourth: Whether or not it is in policy it could be extremely horrifying to find your bum involved in such an act online, especially if the person who posted the photo is no longer in such a favourable relationship. This is a matter of politeness to the model, one could say an act of goodwill. Fifth: Yes, it could be renamed, but the way that it is taken and labelled implies that the photographer was interested in promoting his "large penis" and not interested in improving the wiki, and suggests that this is a private, and boastful, photo rather than an informative one. Sixth: In three years not a single person has tried to improve the image, which implies it might not have been worth improving. The main subject matter is still out of focus, which cannot be improved well enough through editing. Squishwaste (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Only one photo is really needed to show one act"; then why don't you go to a category that has hundreds and thousands of unused photos showing one act? Go pick on Category:Climbing or something. Why is it that people always pick on these pictures first? It isn't because they're alphabetically first. COM:PEOPLE is policy. This is not the place to argue it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't come to "pick on" this kind of photo, I came to this photo when I searched through fishnet (as I like hosiery). People tend to find these photos because they end up being classed excessively. Also, these kinds of photos tend to get used for vandalism more often, so people find what's out of place more quickly; I've never seen a photo of a guy climging used to vandalize a page about a kid's show (although it can happen). Squishwaste (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per opinions above --Ben.MQ (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:April_after_!st_act.jpg Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Non-identifiable, and one of only fourteen photos we have of sexual intercourse. There are 7 billion people alive on this planet, so we can say that sex has been had at least 7 billion times since photography was invented, and no doubt the best part of a billion times since digital photography became common. Yet we have 14 photos... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept No new argument. Yann (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate. Pornographic content. Monsterkillu (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Inappropriate" how? It is in category "Sexual fetishism", and seems relevent to topic. Nudity is not necessarily "pornographic", and in any case Wikimedia is not restricted to G rated content. Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful e.g. as an example of a large labia minora. --Leyo 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this DR is a set of DRs with invalid reasons (COM:NOTCENSORED). By the way: I have added some more categories to show you the usefulness. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this is no pornographic content but a naked woman wearing a breath of nothing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason for deletion... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus above Trycatch (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused private photo, Out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons as last time. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, just kept after deletion request a couple weeks ago. Infrogmation (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:April after !st act.jpg. Hold and wave (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Same as in previous case. How often will you try the same thing over and over again? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no new argument, close this useless DR --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per FloNight on the other case, does not meet COM:PEOPLE. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - has been kept twice in the past 4 months, nothing has changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Something has changed. A group of some people hunts down images with mass {{vd}} votes, to get rid of them. See the Deletion request linked at the top as an example. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, please read FloNight's reason on the link. Pointing out a policy that people have ignored before is something that was overlooked in the above discussion. :) According to COM:PEOPLE, OTRS needs to have a slip that verifies consent from the individual in the picture. That is all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per 2 previous rulings. Inappropriate repeat listings. "Personality" rights not relevant as face not shown.
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is what Commons People suggests as a possible solution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Identifiable"? That seems a dubious stretch to me. "Named"? In what way? (Seriously, I'm at a loss. Is "April Erotic" the person's actual name? So rename the file if that worries you.) I'm not sure how "other images could be used to identify her" -- Um, what, someone might say to themselves "Hey, I recognize that vulva"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image was part of a set. To make her unidentifiable we would have to get rid of anything that links it to the set (like this or the one deleted above, etc.). By the way, the creator has had his images removed per "wife's request" before, which means that it should be easy to get his wife's permission, no ([9]) ? The uploader has an interesting series of edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- So remove her name. By your argument, every picture of a person is identifiable, whether or not we have other pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:PEOPLE - She is identifiable because she was named and other images could be used to identify her. Commons People's doesn't specify that a face has to be seen to be part of identifiable. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naked_wives.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment COM:PORN Missvain (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, well, yes for the most part. :) There were other problems, such as the whole night time copyright nonsense. But like this, not all images can be used or useful. I just want some demonstration of potential. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not for lacking links. Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that we have deleted many Eifel Tower images, right? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apply the same logic to the pictures of the Eifel Tower and have a happy tea party. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- "There are no pages that link to this file." Since "05:25, 6 March 2011". If you think it has an educational use, find at least one page to put it in and that it stays there for more than a day. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which says what relevant? It's pretty clear that several people don't think this has no educational use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. An image of a photographer's woman in a private setting spreading her legs while wearing crotchless fishnet tights. What can this possibly illustrate — "Home pr0n for dummies"? Ari Linn (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - although the previous keeps could be a reason to keep again, in this case there is clearly no realistic possible educative usage, making the file out of scope - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored per udel --MGA73 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wife no longer wants this photo on display as has no value Reddog11223 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Since the face is cut off, she is not recognizable. --Leyo 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Although the deletion reason is invalid, this file is still clearly out of scope. It does not have any educational purpose. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Please elaborate. --Leyo 10:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Courtesy delete The norm on Commons is to allow courtesy deletions in reasonable circumstances. These are normally for recently uploaded images, however considering this is not in use and the original photographer is making this request, I encourage accommodating it. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per Leyo. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - A courtesy deletion requested by the subject of an image that 's not in use and doesn't have significant value should be honored (as a courtesy). We should be respectful of the wishes of subjects, especially those who are not notable, double-plus especially when supported by the author and contributor. --SJ+ 04:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted - pretty easily replaceable, only use is a userpage, no reason to annoy the contributor. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculptor Wäinö Aaltonen died in 1966. Not in Public domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. MKFI (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Complexe enough for copyright, not {{PD-textlogo}}. Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Trademark or copyright violation? I could be wrong, but, worth to take a look at it. Might be fair use? Missvain (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: with {{Trademarked}} Jcb (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material for a skin care line. Missvain (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-educational icon. Missvain (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use. Trycatch (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's in use on a talk page archive only. Unless I'm misreading something per com:scope a file being in use on a talk page does not somehow make it automatically educational or in-scope. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Uploading of small number of personal pictures is allowed. Moreover, it's a rather bad idea to damage archives of other projects deleting pictures relevant to their discussions. Trycatch (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think that this icon has any relevance to any discussion? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Uploading of small number of personal pictures is allowed. Moreover, it's a rather bad idea to damage archives of other projects deleting pictures relevant to their discussions. Trycatch (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's in use on a talk page archive only. Unless I'm misreading something per com:scope a file being in use on a talk page does not somehow make it automatically educational or in-scope. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Can't see any realistic use for this icon. It neither is an offical iconography for Boys Love (Yaoi) nor does it add any value to any context. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it's in use and there is no urgent reason for deletion Jcb (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Chainsaw22
[edit]- File:Age of Racist Sexist Old People.jpg
- File:Age of Racist Sexist AntiSemitic Old People.jpg
- File:Age of Racist Sexist AntiSemitic Homophobic Old People.jpg
- File:Percentage of Old People Who are racist sexist anti-semitic or homophobic.jpg
Noneducational, poor quality and "uncited" charts. Beyond policy, they are ageist, homophobic, anti-semitic, sexist and racist in their intend, meaning they promote vandalism and attack per our deletion policy. --Missvain (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope fabricated "graphs" 99of9 (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kuwait has copyright minimum 50 years from death so this 1965 stamp appears to still be under copright. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent stamp presumably still in copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Recent stamp presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - ordinary group portrait of more than 90 years ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- and how does this fulfill the template's requirements? --Saibo (Δ) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep looking at the source website (Google translation), I do not see any information about the author of the photograph. It looks to fill the requirements of {{PD-EU-anonymous}} tag. MKFI (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to understand how this no information on one webpage should satisfy "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication". --Saibo (Δ) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous as even the history museum doesn't know the name of the photographer. --Sporti (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where do they say that they do not know the name? --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is written where it's known like with Maksim Gaspari at the bottom. --Sporti (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah - sorry, that is not satisfying "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. ". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well you can only proove that his identity was publicly disclosed (if it were), not Vice Versa. You can't proove that something doesn't exsist. I mean look at other similar cases. --Sporti (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, taken strictly this sentence is nearly impossible to proof for most cases. In my opinion it is sufficient if we can be sure to some extent. Your proof is below that threshold in my opinion. There is currently nothing known except the fact that for some unknown reason the museum has not put the name of the photographer below the photo on its website. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- If they knew, they would give a name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, taken strictly this sentence is nearly impossible to proof for most cases. In my opinion it is sufficient if we can be sure to some extent. Your proof is below that threshold in my opinion. There is currently nothing known except the fact that for some unknown reason the museum has not put the name of the photographer below the photo on its website. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well you can only proove that his identity was publicly disclosed (if it were), not Vice Versa. You can't proove that something doesn't exsist. I mean look at other similar cases. --Sporti (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah - sorry, that is not satisfying "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. ". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is written where it's known like with Maksim Gaspari at the bottom. --Sporti (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where do they say that they do not know the name? --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Photo meets Template:Anonymous-EU criteria. — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Image was not first published on that website, thefore the 'no information on the website' is meaningless. From what publication was it scanned, what information was written in that publication. Thats essential source information to say if its Anonymous-EU or not, and this source information is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep museum showpiece --Miha (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Smihael Ipos (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
still no template conditions fulfilling info on the file page - see last DR. "Reasonable evidence must be presented ..." Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - renominations like these are not helpful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pieter Kuiper - Jcb (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above nomination. There is consensus that reasonable evidence is present. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Reasonable efforts have been made to discover the author, to no avail. Please do not re-open without positive evidence that the author is not anonymous. Powers (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please do not re-open without positive evidence that the author is not anonymous." - Well, no, it is the other way round. Also note this requirement:"make sure the author never claimed authorship." (citation of copyright indication tag) Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we're required to show conclusive proof that nobody has ever claimed authorship of the image, I doubt there are many PD-whatever-anonymous images that we could keep. Not sure whether such proof would be a reasonable requirement legally. Anonymous works are certainly problematic, but consensus seems to be that we should accept some such works instead of playing it safe and only hosting media when the author is known. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we do not need any proof and can dump any older-than-70-year photos to Commons we need to change the templates. And that should indicate to reusers that there is totally no proof that this image is free (yes, that is conflicting to Commons' aim and policy).
- Yes, most images with those license templates fail completely to justify the use of the template - like this one.
- Note the closure (you linked yourself) of Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-anon-70: "... its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion. ..." Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - when will Saibo get it? Commons is so out of touch with the wikipedias and with the Foundation and its lawyers. Not only when it comes to the penis wars, but also with regard to copyright: enwp is considering a blackout to protest against de US SOPA law, but he is relentlessly pushing eternal copyright for old photos with unknown authorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Saibo, this is starting to become disruptive. There is a strong and obvious consensus here that what is needed is not conclusive evidence that the author is unknown, only that reasonable efforts have been made and borne no fruit. Powers (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thats the point. Zero effort made here. We not even have one single source consulted. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ltpowers, then
change the template (to some kind of fair use template)make a new fair use template if you think this would be an lawful and accepted change - and in line with our project goals. --Saibo (Δ) 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC) (changed since there are also some few legitimate uses --Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC))- Fair use is not allowed on Commons, and you know it. Please stop. Powers (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seemed you want to change something like introducing fair use. Rules are there to be rewritten. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not a fair use case; this is a case where the overwhelming consensus of editors is that this image is, in fact, in the public domain due to anonymity. Repeatedly re-starting discussion won't change that; without additional evidence of some sort, it is not productive and it is bordering on disruptive. Powers (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request my block. My suggestion to you is already above: make a big poll to change Commons aims (COM:L, COM:PRP, COM:PS#Evidence) and create new templates ... --Saibo (Δ) 16:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not a fair use case; this is a case where the overwhelming consensus of editors is that this image is, in fact, in the public domain due to anonymity. Repeatedly re-starting discussion won't change that; without additional evidence of some sort, it is not productive and it is bordering on disruptive. Powers (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seemed you want to change something like introducing fair use. Rules are there to be rewritten. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons, and you know it. Please stop. Powers (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- DRs are no vote - in order to give your vote a bit of usefulness please comment on the issue and reply to the claims of the contrary of your opinion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the museum doesn't know the identity of the photographer. It is unlikely to be recorded anywhere, hence we assume PD. --Claritas (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that the museum doesn't know the name? Which research was done by the museum? When was the first publication? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep see above --Miha (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is too little data to prove that the image is in public domain. The burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. They have to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined, the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed. The original photo seems to be kept by the Military Museum of Slovenian Armed Forces. It should be retained in Commons only if:
- a) The owner of the image ascertains with an OTRS-confirmed email that they do not know who created the image or a source is found directly stating that the author is unknown, and it is confirmed that the image was first published more than 70 years ago or more than 70 years after it was created.
- b) The owner provides the name of the author or a source is found containing it and it is confirmed that he or she died in 1944 or earlier.
- Possible sources[10] of information are, in addition to the photo library of the museum, J. Švajncer, Slovenska vojska 1918-1919 (COBISS 17207040) and e. g. Sava J. Mikić: Istorija jugoslovenskog vazduhoplovstva [History of the Yugoslav Aviation] (Naša krila, Beograd, 1933, COBISS 16432391), subtitled "sa 615 slika u tekstu" [with 615 images in text].[11] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Commons images need to be free in both the United States and the source country. The copyright status in the United States is unknown because the source doesn't provide any evidence of publication. If unpublished and anonymous, it is copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since creation. If not anonymous, it might be copyrighted in both the United States and in the source country, and the website doesn't seem to tell whether it is anonymous or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. As per previous Keep closures. If anyone discovers it's not in PD feel free to re-open DR to get it deleted --Denniss (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
