Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Doubtful claim of authorship, no EXIF data, fairly low resolution and image can be found all over the web. Mathonius (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a leaflet of the university and it is not the own work of the uploading user A.Ceta (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: And I am doing a mass-delete of this user's uploads since s/he is clearly not understanding the license requirements here. Wknight94 talk 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not Wikipedia, non-notable musician Acroterion (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy. Out of project scope Trijnstel (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
authorship unclear 92.227.0.219 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as clearly not own work; multiple hits http://www.tineye.com/search/93c6881526e63560c0c9f23f180e9fbaa28f3559/?sort=size&order=desc Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
authorship unclear 92.227.0.219 16:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as clearly not own work; http://www.tineye.com/search/30c2f949fcb88101e31d7e6b7f7c37bb4414225f/?sort=size&order=desc Túrelio (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Inma Cuesta.jpg 109.121.141.253 22:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not Fahrenheit, this is a copy of Anders Celsius portrait (see File:Anders-Celsius.jpeg) Sealle (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate of File:Anders-Celsius.jpeg, delete this to eliminate the false information created with this upload. --Martin H. (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Waw! Sorry. File updated. Please, look File:Fahrenheit small.jpg (McOwkin 16:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)).
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional image. OUt of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
car 24.106.149.200 14:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Vroom vroom -mattbuck (Talk) 13:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Sirio Tofanari died in 1969 so his works are copyrighted. --M.casanova (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Moreover it seems this photo wasn't taken by the uploader (according to the summary the source is this website) and since this is a sculpture this cannot be PD-art, so we're also violating the copyright of the photographer. --Jaqen (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
bbnbnbnbb vbhj hgj hjgjk bjmbnm hhkuiikk bmbnb vhjjh nj bb 82.136.97.124 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
eduacational not important Gegensystem (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep - it's an illustration of soggy biscuit, so therefore it is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)- Comment Well then we better add it to the Wikipedia article eh? Missvain (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep As explained above. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Used on several language versions. /FredrikT (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete' as soggy biscuit is an urban legend (i.e. not real) and thus needs no illustration.- 74.136.40.74 04:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- A strange argument. Would you suggest that we also delete all pictures of fictional or mythological persons just because they don't actually exist? /FredrikT (talk) 10:26, 20 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) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- So your argument for deleting is that this is a bad quality photo of someone's genitalia? It's a slightly strange sex act which we have no other pictures of... -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: COM:SCOPE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."
This one is being used in 4 projects. Béria Lima msg 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material? Personal artwork? I'm not sure but...seems rather out of scope. Missvain (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Maybe own mirroring.... For example at these press pages: http://planetaperu.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/tatiana-astengo-se-integra-a-elenco-de-al-fondo-hay-sitio/ or http://www.rpp.com.pe/2011-09-14-muestra-de-cine-peruano-podra-ser-apreciada-en-nueva-york-noticia_403602.html Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope IMO. 99of9 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per your opinion :) Missvain (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:The Battle of Marathon by Elizabeth Barrett Browning Cover Art 500x500.jpg
- File:The Garden of the Prophet Kahlil Gibran 500x500.jpg
- File:The Divine Enchantment by John Neihardt Cover Art 500x500.jpg
- File:Matthew Arnold Balder Dead Cover Artwork.jpg
- File:The Wise Woman George MacDonald Cover Art.jpg
- Delete I would tend to agree (and expanded the summaries primarily because I feared people would be misled). There are more. Can we tag them all for inclusion here, or is that not kosher on Commons? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Generic Song of Hugh Glass by John Neihardt Cover.jpg
- File:Generic Wanderings of Oisin by Yeats Cover.jpg
- File:Generic Cover Art - The Wise Woman by MacDonald.jpg
- File:Thomas Macaulay Lays of Ancient Rome Artwork Cover.jpg
- File:Generic Eros and Psyche by Robert Bridges Cover Art.jpg
- File:Art Cover Tristram & Iseult Matthew Arnold.jpg
- File:CD Cover Artwork Alastor by Percy Bysshe Shelley.jpg
- File:Matthew Arnold Sohrab & Rustum.jpg
- File:Sir Walter Scott's Narrative Poem Harold the Dauntless.jpg
- File:The Lord of the Isles by Sir Walter Scott Cover Art 500x500.jpg
- File:The Prophet Kahlil Gibran Cover Art 300x300.jpg
- With 99of9's permission, I have tagged the other images as well, since they are all of the same nature. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sir Walter Scott illustrated with images of Russian characters? It could be worse: Ninjas! NVO (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep These are freely licensed covers in use at "books should be free" - audio books [1]. There may be some objections of appropriateness of particular images to the topics, but others are fine. When this was first nominated these were viewed as a hoax but that is not the case. Educational use is (a) as at booksshouldbefree, and (b) potentially in the WP articles where the whole flap started.
- Do you regard all user created artwork as in scope? For instance, if people make their own covers for bootleg audio recordings, are we to host those as well? In terms of their use at Books Should Be Free, I suspect that they got them from us. The creativity threshold is pretty low on these, since the original images are public domain, but assuming that they were at booksshouldbefree first, what makes you think they are freely licensed? Their terms don't say a word about their images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure I have a thought-out or consistent position on user-created artwork, except I would oppose blanket deletion. My response above was specifically to the assertion that these images have no educational use. As far as provenance, the images have OTRS tickets so in the absence of a specific challenge I take it that these were legitimately contributed. I think some of this dispute is arising, not out of policy, but out of a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes educational use. I would contend it (educational use) does not consist solely of presentation and documentation of facts. for instance, the ruined castle in File:Art Cover Tristram & Iseult Matthew Arnold.jpg is effective in setting mood. It is obviously not a representation of an actual location cited in the poem.
- It is of course possible that the project does not want to get into the subjective questions of mood and symbolism, but in that case our treatment of verbal and visual arts will be as dry as a catalog.
- WP specifically permits user-created art, when I last looked it still allowed symbolic images, and the issue of mis-representation has largely been laid to rest. I simply do not think that with proper attribution these images raise any serious policy issues here or at WP. The issue of suitability for a particular article can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
- Dankarl (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment File:Matthew Arnold Balder Dead Cover Artwork.jpg is derived from an image with a {{PD-Art}} license. Nothing that meets the threshold of originality was added. Consequently, the result should retain the license of the original. The OTRS ticket would appear to serve no useful purpose. Many, if not all, of the other files are similar. I see no licensing issues here (if the originals are correctly licensed). A couple of this files could be used to illustrate en:Audio_book#Distribution_and_popularity and other similar content. But, Commons should not be used as a repository for more than a few of such images; that is not its COM:SCOPE, in my opinion. I'm striking my vd vote above, but suggest that the uploader cease uploading similar files. Also, if my analysis (above) is correct, their license should be corrected. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Flickr uploader does not own the copyright to this image - work of a professional photographer, and the Flickr account is listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users Ytoyoda (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Flickr uploader does not own the copyright to this image - work of a professional photographer, and the Flickr account is listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users Ytoyoda (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship, since this is a self-portrait of Mike McGear (see this article) in a very low resolution. Mathonius (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, see this user page of the uploader, stating that he's in middle school. Mathonius (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful own work. Also at http://persipuraonline.blogspot.com/2011/06/nil-maesar-boaz-layak-ke-eropa.html since June 2011 (two month earlier than here). Or at http://fadhlyashary.blogspot.com/2011/07/boaz-masuk-worlds-top-goal-scorer-2011.html → jpg one month earlier. Saibo (Δ) 02:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful own work. At http://balistik06.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/made-khawatir-hujan/ → jpg since 26 September 2010 which is about a year earlier than here. Saibo (Δ) 02:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, no educational value. Mathonius (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facundo Parra.png as well. Mathonius (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, but this is a new user, so please make sure to explain why this image is inappropriate or how to create images without running into any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, no educational value. Mathonius (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Facundo 2.png as well. Mathonius (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, but this is a new user, so please make sure to explain why this image is inappropriate or how to create images without running into any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material uploaded by user. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Could be in scope as an illustration of theatre in India, or the U of Mumbai activities. Not sure about licensing though. NVO (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned low resolution photo uploaded by users own organization. Possibly out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the website claims the copyright for this and File:Alternate tienda.jpg the other image from the uploader. I nominated both of them for speedy deletion. -- Queeg (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like someone's project? Many file replacements of different images...out of scope? Missvain (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The wikipedian who uploaded those images into that namespace is apparently doing some rendering of aircraft. I think that the conservative use of the namespace here is pretty good. I had a dream once where I was trying to explain this capability of the software to the Russians at en.wikipedia and it failed, as often bad dreams can go.... -- Queeg (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Lacks author, description, and appropriate information. TinEye gives one message board hit, but, it's such a small resolution..oprhaned and highly doubtful that its the users own work. Missvain (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missing source, evidence of license --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned small image that is lacking summary information and has since upload in 2007. Questionable on if this is the users own work. Missvain (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal art work. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as author. No need for this here. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing is in doubt - what is the connection between Thomas Vespermann and Hildesheimer Natur? needs OTRS. As to nominators' points - Promotion of what? Of a bunch of rocks in a Sachsonian forest? Please! Other images in Category:Bodensteiner Klippen are in scope, e.g. in de:Wallmoden (perhaps too many pics for that page). NVO (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps someone can edit out the website address and crop it to leave the image of rocks, to remove the promotional website address content. Missvain (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material. OUt of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing is in doubt - what is the connection between Thomas Vespermann and Hildesheimer Natur? needs OTRS. As to nominators' points - Promotion of what? Of a bunch of rocks in a Sachsonian forest? Please! Other images in Category:Bodensteiner Klippen are in scope, e.g. in de:Wallmoden (perhaps too many pics for that page). NVO (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- As to disturbing frame and lettering - see history of File:Bodensteiner Klippen 1.jpg. NVO (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned logo? Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Miniature figure, possibly copyrighted? Other opinions needed =) Missvain (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, (c) http://www.spawn.com/info/copyright.aspx - delete. NVO (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a television screen shot. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal art work. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, art work, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope (no educational value, low resolution, poor quality) and not used anywhere. Mathonius (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Add: "I Am Aswome" as the intro and only other edit was this page talking about a sister. User doesn't understand Commons and seems to be a child. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality orphaned icon. Maybe out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Emblem of an Anglican diocese in Japan - most likely, not free. ~ NVO (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The Diocese was founded in 1874 -- I'm going to assume that this is PD-old. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Long time oprhaned, copyright marked image. Missvain (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Oprhaned personal photo, depicts a minor. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Really low quality image, not even sure what it is. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low res out of scope content. Missvain (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned logo for a non-notable restaurant. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal art work. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep could be reused. Some filtering and it would be fine. It may be an personal artwork but that doesn't make it out of scope when it can be used (entirely or partially). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope orphaned photo. Shows a gun being pointed at someone's face. Joke or not, probably should be deleted. Missvain (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope art work/project. Missvain (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned art work/logo/something. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Just another chart design? It's a typical chart type to illustrate values by size or number of objects. Well it could be redrawn as SVG. But that doesn't make it out of scope. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No description, no categories >>> no scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned logo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no envidence of permission, unlikely to be own work (see watermark) Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image, no evidence of permission, and watermark stated Studio Gandom Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, with so little file description given, unclear what the educational value of this image is. Mathonius (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
While it seems plausable that Sw00pel is the artist, based on his beheavior, Sw00pel is not notable, his work is not a particularly pure example of the artform (according to the spamfest of an article this is galleried in), and his sole existance on Wikipedia is self promotion. I see no reason why we should provide free gallery space for someone who's art really dosen't belong in the gallery in the first place. Sven Manguard (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. And which spamfest would this be? The rest of us might like an article link. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Photo of insignificant person, Commons is not a personal picture album. Bill william comptonTalk 06:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture of user. What's a need of another if he already has one. Bill william comptonTalk 06:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of insignificant person. Commons is not a repository of personal images of non-encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 06:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use on a user page. Trycatch (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: User page photos are allowed, maybe even encouraged. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture of user. Bill william comptonTalk 06:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: this picture, which is currently used on su:Pamaké:SU12Chaerunnisa, has been uploaded along with a lot of other files as part of - what seems to be - a local initiative of su.wikipedia (see this web page). I've added {{Userpageimage}} to the file description page. Mathonius (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Changing No Source tag to regular DR. The uploader did not give a source, but the image might be in public domain. Need expert opinion. Sreejith K (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tudor died 1922. Australia is 50 years after publication, so this is OK by 29 years. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
error by creation ..plan, was to create a Category... now i have the Category created, the content moved..thanks Furchenstein (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
renault promo images, no proof they are free Typ932 (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
BMW promo images , also in http://www.netcarshow.com/bmw/2012-1-series_sport_line/ Typ932 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality and not used anywhere. Leyo 09:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used anywhere. Leyo 09:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for multiple chemical problems: what are the two "CH"s? Compared to the high quality File:Maraviroc.svg, there are multiple chemical mistakes not just low quality: incorrect side-chains on the triazole (should be a methyl and an isopropyl) and incorrect central ring (should be ethylene bridge not two cis methyls). DMacks (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Incorrect picture George Chernilevsky talk 10:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality (badGIF), better alternatives available. Leyo 10:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Seriously bad indeed. Have File:Urapidil Structural Formulae V.1.svg with same level of detail and also File:Urapidil.svg and File:Urapidil.png. Some have slightly (or very) different orientation but if someone needs the .gif's orientation specifically would be easy enough to recreate as high-quality in either vector or raster. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
File is being used to host a CV, image is not useful. S Larctia (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Painting, no evidence of permission from the painter (who is not even named). Martin H. (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster. Commons:De minimis not applicable here. Leyo 10:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Non of the requirements of Template:PD-ROC-exempt is fulfilled. Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Non of the requirements of Template:PD-ROC-exempt is fulfilled, no source informtion given at all. Martin H. (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: a simple TinEye search provides a hit from http://www.president.gov.tw/ which is a ROC government website; under the first clause of article 9 of the ROC copyright law, the image is exempt from copyright, as "The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties." I assume that prior to October 2009 the original French Wikipedia page listed the source (as evident from "( {{BotMoveToCommons|fr.wikipedia|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}} {{Information |Description={{fr|* [http://www.president.gov.tw Portail officiel du ROC gouvernment]}} |Source=Transferred from [http:/)"), and the bot that moved the image from FR Wikipedia to Commons omitted that information. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you understand the term "official document" in a very broad meaning. For what reason is the copyright holder expropriated? What is the public interest in expropriation? Can you provide a source that confirm that an portrait from some websites constitutes an official document. --Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties - I don't see how an official government portrait wouldn't be the work of civil servants. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 16:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- The sentence refers to documents. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties - I don't see how an official government portrait wouldn't be the work of civil servants. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 16:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you understand the term "official document" in a very broad meaning. For what reason is the copyright holder expropriated? What is the public interest in expropriation? Can you provide a source that confirm that an portrait from some websites constitutes an official document. --Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Cover of a book from 1956, probably still copyrighted Perditax (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
ican this file delet Sheikhalizadeh (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion given. It is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Image not created by NASA but by ESA, not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Also nominating:
- File:Pirografia The Wolf.jpg
- File:Pirografia Centurione.jpg
- File:Pirografia Aquila.jpg
- File:Pirografia Leopardo.jpg
All images on the claimed source website, http://www.stefaniamante.com, are marked as all-rights-reserved. The uploader claims to be the owner of the website, but no evidence is presented (either here or on that website) that this statement is true. Consequently, we have no solid evidence of permission. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is also personal art, which we do not showcase here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
While the uploader claims to be the author, it is also claimed to be from http://www.olivertclark.com, which gives no evidence (1) of a free license for this image, or (2) that the uploader and the website owner are the same person. If evidence is provided, I'll withdraw the nomination, but in the absence of evidence we can't safely keep this image. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Also nominating the following:
With the permissions template, the uploader claims to be the creator, Juan Carlos Gonzalez. No proof of this is presented, so we can't safely keep these images unless proof is added.
Note that the Retrato image survived a previous discussion, but I can't see how — except for the nominator, nobody paid any attention to the complete absence of proof for the permission statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Also, they are personal artworks which we do not showcase here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
logo of not notable Internet site Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free logo. Giro720 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused - personal picture? Lymantria (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Author/source is given as "State of Tennesee" - therefore not {{PD-USGov}}. Lymantria (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This "logo" seems copyrighted - claim of own work is unlikely. Lymantria (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Violación de los derechos de copyright 212.225.177.61 13:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FOP for sculptures in the US. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.204.7 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- FOP cases are never speedied. Especially when brought here by permablocked offenders. NVO (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- but then there's no evidence that Hallier, who died one year ago, donated anything to PD, = "copyrighted", = delete. NVO (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- FOP cases are never speedied. Especially when brought here by permablocked offenders. NVO (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Logo Profix 2011.jpg. Advertisement for likely not notable company. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Stanislao marino.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Biswajit bahirgachi upload by sujoy.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Lower resolution duplicate of File:Vulkan Logo.jpg - slightly different coloration though. Lymantria (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Yeyemata.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Probable web capture, poor-quality image of an out-of-scope minor Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
i took it for her for your information.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. Small, only upload of user. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, oprhaned photograph for a non-notable performer. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, also includes the individuals mailing address. Strange. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The caption here accuses the Pakistani prime minister of groping, which is inappropriate. In any case, it appears to be a screen capture from some sort of video, and the editor's claim of authorship seems suspect. Dominic (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Previously listed for deletion and kept Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boobinpubl 001.jpg, however the reason for listing was different (and IMO is not relevant to the current listing). The uploader user on en:W is only an occasional contributor, and has uploaded no other images with own work claim. Infrogmation (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Very poor quality image, appears to be from a TV screenshot perhaps? Missvain (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of the photo at http://www.yoshiigallery.com/artistview.php?artist_id=31, not entirely own work. Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
=> This drawing was a request from an administrator of the French Wikipedia. --Giobd (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: That may be, but it is still a DW. Sorry. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Test upload, out of scope Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Test upload George Chernilevsky talk 10:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Image is identical to that on http://www.flyinthesky.it/aerei/SukhoiT-50.htm although not attributed it gives doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder, italian webpage is dated 23 Jun 2011 well before the upload of the identical image to commons MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo and interface. Dominic (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 10:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
A promotional collage without credits for individual photos + a newspaper clipping with non-free text credited to de:Hildesheimer Allgemeine Zeitung. ~ NVO (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope +copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 10:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Flag of Indonesia.svg is the proper SVG file. No use. Fry1989 eh? 18:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Fry1989 eh? 18:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Horribly disfigured by excessive JPEG compression. Nonsense licensing claims. Useless. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 10:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Enciclopedic information has to be placed on WIkipedia. Aleator (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Written essay, out of scope. Aleator (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, wrong project, this is the wrong place for text articles like this. --Martin H. (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. No FoP in France. The architect of this building is still alive. Only free images are allowed in "Commons". Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Image that has had the background manipulated for no apparent reason. Good image editing skills, but not within COM:SCOPE. CT Cooper · talk 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Legal note on source page seems to restrict use to non-commercial: http://granollers.cat/avis-legal. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
too dark Daz7506 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's a personal image, of a Westie, and I know we have better photos of Westies that don't have HDR :) Including this total mass of cuteness: File:Westie pups.jpg Missvain (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No use, SVG file exists. ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason Jcb (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It is mine and i want it to be deleted because it is used without referring the photo to me Lubna (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- You released this under a free licence some four years ago. While I am sorry that people are using the image without crediting you, the thing to do there is issue a DMCA takedown request to the copyright violator. Keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Depicts sculpture by Richard Hallier (1944-2010), presumably copyrighted, no freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNCC Statue Relay Runner Richard Hallier.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNCC Statue Female Soccer Player Richard Hallier.jpg. ~ NVO (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Missvain (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
can't see anything AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. TIFF file uploaded with a ".jpg" extension seems to throw off display handling. Downloading the full size and storing with a ".tiff" extension yields a displayable image. However, Delete: it's a poor-quality scan of some Arabic(?) newspaper, possibly old, possibly recent. Lupo 10:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably copyrighted work. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Perhaps, regardless, it's a poor scan and rather out of scope. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Hardly out of scope. It's being used in a WikiNews article from 2007 authored by the image uploader. Author/uploader says it's his, maybe he typed it out and scanned it... since we're going on presumptions and all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 08:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- ....why would someone type it out and then scan it? It's a waste. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why this would be an "example of naivety" and its use as such would be inappropriate: out of project scope. Mathonius (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution unused personal picture - out of scope Lymantria (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
quality of the picture questionable. there are several other pictures showing the same action with better quality. Gegensystem (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - in use on en.wp talk page, but that's not a proper project page so can be ignored. Bad quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Ack! Missvain (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per consensus George Chernilevsky talk 10:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong focus, the background is sharp... bad quality Gegensystem (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - agreed, bad quality and easily replaceable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Missvain (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per consensus George Chernilevsky talk 10:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, not used in any project, doesn't add anything new to the already-existing files. Kostas20142 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
a copy of that is still uploaded in the commons, why do we need two of them? Gegensystem (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - because it's still in use, and SVG is not universally liked. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep we need two because they are in SVG and JPG. Not all authors like SVG, just like the renderer does not like all SVGs :-/ --Don-kun (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn´t know that we use both formats. There was a notice, saying we should only use *.jpegs.... -- Gegensystem (talk) 15:17, 20 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) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - tomorrow is the regular closing day, if I see it still open tomorrow and no new arguments have been added, I will keep-close this DR. The fact the image is in use, makes all mentioned deletion reasons just irrelevant - Jcb (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, therefore all mentioned deletion reasons are just irrelevant Jcb (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of insignificant person. Commons is not a repository of personal images of non-encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 06:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Mathonius Courcelles (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of insignificant person. Commons is not a repository of personal images of non-encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 06:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Per Mathonius Courcelles (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of insignificant person. Commons is not a repository of personal images of non-encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 06:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Mathonius Courcelles (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of insignificant person. Commons is not a repository of personal images of non-encyclopedic use. Bill william comptonTalk 06:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Info: see my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icha Hanbok.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Mathonius Courcelles (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.203.93 10:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:Nudity --Missvain (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- A dick is anything but nonsense. Watch it! Now, to the point of "too many dicks", Category:Hirsuties papillaris genitalis is not over populated, so one more specimen won't hurt. keep NVO (talk)
- Delete Are u kidding? Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, we have already many, many images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Emphasis on new uploads - this is not a new image. Further, COM:Nudity is hardly a good reason, what bit of it? Keep as no real reason has been given for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The date is 17 September 2011 so for the new uploads part, why is it not? --Ben.MQ (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, sorry, must have misread it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- The date is 17 September 2011 so for the new uploads part, why is it not? --Ben.MQ (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Emphasis on new uploads - this is not a new image. Further, COM:Nudity is hardly a good reason, what bit of it?
- Delete More images than can be useful. Commons:Nudity#New uploads. As the warning says, such images "with no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects may be deleted". The Wiki already has tons of images that can be used for this. Nothing new. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 21 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) 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep one of about three photos with the penis pointing down in Category:Hirsuties papillaris genitalis. The whole category only 44 images. Deletion not needed for any reason except "I do not like it. Useful photo. --Saibo (Δ) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No specific part of policies cited by deleters requesters and voters. Argument above mine and Saibo is by Hold and wave is invalid as this user was blocked for spamming several DR of images related to sexuality with the same argument (“Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“) irrespectably od the specifics of each image. Per NVO there isnt many images about Hirsuties papillaris genitalis and Saibo about angle. Per Commons:Nudity as commons is not censored. In scope as the nominator admits as it shows exhibitionism. Tm (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per NVO and Saibo, and that this is much more plausably useful than the average penis picture added to Commons Courcelles (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.203.93 10:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:Nudity --Missvain (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose no reason for deleting--Albedo-ukr (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)- delete, not because the German IP considers dicks nonsense, but because the photo is unnaturally distorted. This specific case of Hirsuties papillaris genitalis is already well presented here. NVO (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've seen you leave this comment about "dicks being nonsense" else where. I think the nominator is referring to it just being useless exhibitionist ego masturbatory photography. While that isn't a reason to delete, other folks are pointing out reasons to delete. I think many of us can say "Penises are awesome!" and mean it, it's just so many men seem to want to house their personal cock shots on Commons, and it just gets old, and frankly, we don't need a million photos of penises when a few can be educational. Missvain (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, we have already many, many images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - photoshopping your cock bigger? That's sad. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Not useful at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 21 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) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Cozza2000 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Claims of own work are implausable Courcelles (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
+other uploads by User:Mywiki76 -- File:ShannonGuess2.jpg and File:ShannonGuess2011.jpg. Look like copyvios -- pro photographs + screenshot from some video. Trycatch (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreed, likely copyvios Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.203.93 10:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:Nudity --Missvain (talk) 16:27, 17 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) 15:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agree -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad quality image what with the hand visible at bottom left. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Logo permission unclear, I think its copyrighted by Opel Typ932 (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is, but the question is: is the combination of a circle and a blitz complex enough to exceed {{PD-trivial}} threshold? Does the addition of their tagline make it any more complex? NVO (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO). Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
renomiate, because its very obvious its not free logo, same as used in the opel page, just smaller size Typ932 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPEL_2009_logo.png says its copyrighted by General Motors --Typ932 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:Threshold of originality? And do you know the difference between copyright and trademarks? --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, because it clearly its not free use, otherwise we would have all car logos here --Typ932 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a confusing reply, and not really an answer to the question. It seems you really do not know the difference between copyright and trademarks. --Rosenzweig τ 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in fact "we" do have logos of (practically) every notable company (not just cars). See how one editor attempted deletion of BMW and Porsche labels. But of course "consensus can change". NVO (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, because it clearly its not free use, otherwise we would have all car logos here --Typ932 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:Threshold of originality? And do you know the difference between copyright and trademarks? --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you notice the difference between this logo and the logo used on the wikipedia, whats the difference? if its free use why we need another logo uploaded to english wikipedia?? --Typ932 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a question you should ask at the English wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, we don't. --Rosenzweig τ 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If you put Opel's logo in a 2D representation is basically a circle, a letter "Z" or a ray, and the word "Opel". Neither are original and put them in 3D won't make them original. And no, we can't upload all logos here because many of them are original enough. See 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, as examples. Tbhotch (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The licence here is incorrect. This is a complex logo together with a marketing slogan. It is clearly a copyright image and should only be used on Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Biker Biker (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Long-term copyvio vandal.[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Not again. This is a German logo, German threshold of originality is not as strong as the US or the UK. I already described this logo and it is not original by itself. Metallic paint and 3D shapes are not original. Tbhotch™ 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep see above. ᛏᛟᚱᚨᚾᚨ 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Typ932 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
- Why? --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read above, copyrighted logo --Typ932 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not. Also see above, last deletion request for this file. --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Trademark
- Not. Also see above, last deletion request for this file. --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read above, copyrighted logo --Typ932 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The marks appearing on this website including, but not limited to: Adam Opel AG, based in Rüsselsheim, Germany and Vauxhall, based in Luton, UK and their respective logos, emblems, slogans and vehicle model names and body designs are trademarks and/or service marks of General Motors Company, its subsidiaries, affiliates or licensors." --Typ932 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Trademark is not the same as copyright, as was already explained to you. --Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Copyright 2012 Adam Opel AG, based in Rüsselsheim, Germany. All Rights Reserved. All text, images, graphics, animation, videos, music and other materials on this Site are subject to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of Adam Opel AG. These materials may not be reproduced, distributed, modified or reposted to other websites without the express written permission of Adam Opel AG." Seems to be too difficult to understand --Typ932 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not everything companies claim is true. --Rosenzweig τ 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you can decide whats not ? or what is the threshold. Nice --Typ932 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is one of the roles of admins here: To decide such questions. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I dont think that admin role is to override laws. But if you think so just continue on your way --Typ932 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is one of the roles of admins here: To decide such questions. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept - per Commons:TOO --Denniss (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
educational not important. Gegensystem (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Our only example of outdoor ejaculation. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The description says the person is ejaculating after taking viagra. Pardon my vulgarity but it looks like digitized cum. I don't understand how this can be educational 1) when the image is so small 2) The guy isn't even cumming. 3) Who needs to be educated on the difference between ejaculating inside versus outside? I'm laughing just typing this. We have plenty of photos of men ejaculating without the help of digitization. Missvain (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - as said by user Mattbuck - wiki's only image of man ejaculating on outdoors. To delete it would be a loss of Wikipedia See here [3] for ref. Jethwarp (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, the spam seems photoshopped Jcb (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
exhibitionistic nonsense 89.247.203.93 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Commons:Nudity --Missvain (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination is nonsense. There's not that many images of Hirsuties papillaris genitalis to warrant deletion. keep. NVO (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Are you kidding? Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, we have already many, many images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Shows the subject very well. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - we already have more than enough papillaris images to be useful without them showing anything that could justify inclusion into an article already filled. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- We are not here to editorialise or decide what others might want. If an image is within reasonable scope, is decent quality and properly licenced, it should be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, but educational is a subjective understanding that requires us to figure out what others might want. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- We are not here to editorialise or decide what others might want. If an image is within reasonable scope, is decent quality and properly licenced, it should be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 21 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) 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No specific part of policies cited by deleters requesters and voters. Argument above mine is by Hold and wave is invalid as this user was blocked for spamming several DR of images related to sexuality with the same argument (“Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“) irrespectably od the specifics of each image. Per NVO there isnt many images about Hirsuties papillaris genitalis. Per Commons:Nudity as commons is not censored. In scope as the nominator admits as it shows exhibitionism. Tm (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no real importance, except if for the VD section -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No good reasons for deletion. Leyo 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material for uploader's organization. Orphaned. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to the closing administrator, I have repeatedly asked User Hold and Wave to consider leaving more meaningful responses than "per nom". Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Just crop the logo halfway and restore the rest with content aware fill and it is a fine picture, with multiple possible use cases. Can't agree with the out of scope argument. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- no longer an orphan, was always in scope. I took the liberty of renaming the image. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Question - are we sure we have permission for this? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's my problem, as well. Delete pending OTRS confirmation of permission. Clearly should be kept as in scope if and only if we can verify permission. Courcelles (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's my problem, as well.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned average image of the sky. We have other images that are of better quality and description. I think we can spare this one. Missvain (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no problem with well described images of clouds.
Perhaps a more appropriate reason to delete this users images is the weirdness/inconsistancy in the uploads. I found one that was marked as having been uploaded by a bot from fi.wikipedia amid others that were uploaded by this user. When did bots start to upload into the users namespace? Surely not in 2006? But even then, it seems like it would be far more healthy to delete the people who do this and not the images that are at least within the scope of the project.-- Queeg (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- A bot added that to those images later. Much later. I was wrong. -- Queeg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
User David Shankbone is edit-warring to remove a blitheringly obvious 2257 warning. At least the warning must appear. 70.109.144.96 15:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Violates Section 2257 records keeping-- image POSTERS are required to post the notification of where records are kept. Mattbuck is not the appropriate one to review this request. 70.109.144.96 05:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Mattbuck certainly has the right to close a DR, and it's abusive to immediately reopen a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- This user has been edit warring and has been blocked once on enwiki for removing this image from the article in spite of WP:NOTCENSORED. The 18 USC §2257 issues are a complete red herring. Under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, the primary producer would be the photographer - either User:Allstarecho or someone else. Whether that user needs to abide by the record-keeping component of 18 USC §2257 depend on whether his primary interest in producing the material is commercial or not. Until the Foundation's General Counsel instructs the projects to remove pornographic images for reasons related to 18 USC §2257, please stop your pointless campaign both on enwiki and Commons to have images deleted against policy. If you think there are 18 USC §2257 compliance issues, please feel free to email the General Counsel. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Falkensee.svg is better than this file (which I uploaded). Obsolete. -- Serpens ?! 18:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Serpens ?! 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Support, quality of svg looks far better. --Túrelio (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Double from File:Vierendeelbréck zu Gelik.jpg Les Meloures (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of File:Vierendeelbréck zu Gelik.jpg. --P199 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Vuelom (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by ESPK (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Singermegha (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Weil ich diese nicht haben möchte 217.246.48.194 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request :bdk: 21:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
loeschen 84.215.79.142 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: again, nonsense request :bdk: 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
mmm 91.64.209.246 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: again, nonsense request. --Túrelio (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has uploaded this flag twice. This one should be deleted. ~ Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no link provided to duplicate Jcb (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Flag of the August Putch in Russia in 1991.svg Happy now? You could have just asked, instead of closing it. Lazy. ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the task of the nominator to make a correct DR. If you request for deletion for being a duplicate and you don't provide link to the other file, it will be a keep for the moment, that's for sure. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
there are many ejaculation pictures on commons, think we don´t need this one. Gegensystem (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - we don't have any other images from this angle, or ones showing the extreme scrotal contraction. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, we have already many, many images, "at this angle" is ridicolous (there are endless possible angles). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- From this angle being "the side". Also, if you must c/p arguments, at least spell them right. It's ridiculous. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete More images than can be useful. Commons:Nudity#New uploads. As the warning says, such images "with no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects may be deleted". The Wiki already has tons of images that can be used for this. Nothing new. Different "angles" isn't enough to be new. Educational value is not based on seeing the same action by white males hundreds of times. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are no similar images from the side like this, including showing the scrotal contraction. I concur with your final sentence, but I think this is the wrong image to be deleting if we are hell-bent on deleting something. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are operating off of a different understanding of the word "similar". To me, mere positioning does not count as being different. If it was say, a Chinese penis, an Indian penis, an African penis, sure, different. A penis merely 2 degrees higher in angle, nah. Scrotal contraction is meaningless, and I am sure there are other images. If you can fit it into a page, fine, you have an argument. But it already seems like these images will be unused because there are already so many. Hey, I said the same thing about images of famous buildings (one just recently). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying 2 degrees is a big difference, but 90 is. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can't help but think that you are sitting at your monitor with a protractor. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying 2 degrees is a big difference, but 90 is. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are operating off of a different understanding of the word "similar". To me, mere positioning does not count as being different. If it was say, a Chinese penis, an Indian penis, an African penis, sure, different. A penis merely 2 degrees higher in angle, nah. Scrotal contraction is meaningless, and I am sure there are other images. If you can fit it into a page, fine, you have an argument. But it already seems like these images will be unused because there are already so many. Hey, I said the same thing about images of famous buildings (one just recently). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are no similar images from the side like this, including showing the scrotal contraction. I concur with your final sentence, but I think this is the wrong image to be deleting if we are hell-bent on deleting something. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We only have 44 images of human ejaculation - and several are already nominated for deletetion. We do not editorialize other projects and are there to provide a selection of images. There is not even a image which is close to this. No reason for deletion. Quoting the OP: I think we need this one - and more. --Saibo (Δ) 01:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just curious, but why do we need 44 images of human ejaculation? And why human instead of male? How many pages will these fit on? Why, if they are useful, are so many unused? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Why do we need not just one image in Commons (a photo of Jimbo of course) but 11 million? How many shirts do you have? And why do you always wear only one? And why do you wear 25% of all your shirts not once in two years? And: did you know about the commonscat links usually in the external links section of Wikipedia articles? They are there because visitors can see usually more images here at Commons than in the article. So, indirectly (by those links) the images are in use.
The category in which the image is is about male, human ejaculation (see supercats) although its title badly reflects this. I guess we (sadly) do not have female, human ejaculation images, do we? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)- I never said we needed just one image. What I asked is why we need 44. I'm sure you can justify a handful. But how many do you think we need? And why are they all white men? Is it educational that our sexual images are all provided by the same white European exhibitionists? Does it help a poor starving kid in China to see that the only penises are white? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a complete straw man, Ottava, and you know it. If there is a racial bias inherent in our images, the answer is to add more images. I'm afraid I don't know any non-caucasians who I could convince to let me photograph their genitals, otherwise I'd help redress the balance. However, I think this is clear - if your poor starving Chinese kid sees a large variety of penises, they'll get a better idea than if they just see one because we deleted the others in some strange parody of affirmative action. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if it is a straw man it is at least a living, breathing one like from Oz. :) My point about the racial bias is that it is dubious that they were uploaded with the spirit of ensuring that we have a complete set of images. If they cared about making sure we have every difference, why not start with the major things first before getting into the subtle differences of angles? :) I'm just worried that more likely the Chinese child will think that anything related to penises deals with crazy Europeans and that "no sensible Chinese person would upload that". If we are all about promoting a culture of freedom via penii, shouldn't we make it clear that we are promoting a culture that is similar to his own? There's the rub. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is a complete straw man, Ottava, and you know it. If there is a racial bias inherent in our images, the answer is to add more images. I'm afraid I don't know any non-caucasians who I could convince to let me photograph their genitals, otherwise I'd help redress the balance. However, I think this is clear - if your poor starving Chinese kid sees a large variety of penises, they'll get a better idea than if they just see one because we deleted the others in some strange parody of affirmative action. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I never said we needed just one image. What I asked is why we need 44. I'm sure you can justify a handful. But how many do you think we need? And why are they all white men? Is it educational that our sexual images are all provided by the same white European exhibitionists? Does it help a poor starving kid in China to see that the only penises are white? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Why do we need not just one image in Commons (a photo of Jimbo of course) but 11 million? How many shirts do you have? And why do you always wear only one? And why do you wear 25% of all your shirts not once in two years? And: did you know about the commonscat links usually in the external links section of Wikipedia articles? They are there because visitors can see usually more images here at Commons than in the article. So, indirectly (by those links) the images are in use.
- Just curious, but why do we need 44 images of human ejaculation? And why human instead of male? How many pages will these fit on? Why, if they are useful, are so many unused? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 22 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) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please note, the above user has been banned for copy/pasting such comments into multiple DRs. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which applies to bad quality images, which this is not. Also, it does require someone to drop their pants and take a photo, otherwise we'd have no images of genitalia at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn´t matter if we´ve any images of genitalia. -- Gegensystem (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? You think that it doesn't matter whether we have any images of human genitalia? I'm afraid you are very much mistaken, especially because your nomination was based on the fact that we have other images. We need images of genitalia because human sexuality is an extremely important area to educate people about. I'm afraid you have shown your true colours here, your nomination is not about this image being removable, which frankly is not a reason for deletion anyway, but because you simply don't like it. I move for a speedy keep in light of this. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- No my nominations are not against nude pictures uploaded in the wikipedia commons. I nominated it because of the reason I´ve given above. I didn´t tell anything about if I like the photos or if I do not like them. But we missunderstand usselfs. You wanna keep all nude pictures you can get here, and i wanna reduce the amount of them, if they are showing completely the same action. And I also know that you wanna keep 10.000 pictures of the same action in 10.000 different angles because you are not able to imagin the action in your mind.... I need only one or a maximum of two. That is the difference. That is maybe personal, but sometimes I´ve to say who cares?? -- Gegensystem (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- You freely admitted it doesn't matter if we have other images, after nominating this on the basis we have other images. You contradict yourself, and for that reason I do not believe you nominated in good faith. To say we only need 2 of something is frankly ridiculous. Let's apply this thought process to an analogy, say we take, oh, let's say roses. Then by your logic, we only need 2 images of a rose in order to document them fully and completely. That is complete rubbish. I am not saying that every penis should be kept, nor have I ever said that, I do believe in pruning useless images, but this image is actually quite good. You'll notice that I did not {{Vk}} on all your nominations - that's because with some I think you're right, they are bad photos, but this is not one of them. Show me one other image of this - of ejaculation, from the side, showing the scrotal contraction. Go on, show me these images you believe are similar. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- No my nominations are not against nude pictures uploaded in the wikipedia commons. I nominated it because of the reason I´ve given above. I didn´t tell anything about if I like the photos or if I do not like them. But we missunderstand usselfs. You wanna keep all nude pictures you can get here, and i wanna reduce the amount of them, if they are showing completely the same action. And I also know that you wanna keep 10.000 pictures of the same action in 10.000 different angles because you are not able to imagin the action in your mind.... I need only one or a maximum of two. That is the difference. That is maybe personal, but sometimes I´ve to say who cares?? -- Gegensystem (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? You think that it doesn't matter whether we have any images of human genitalia? I'm afraid you are very much mistaken, especially because your nomination was based on the fact that we have other images. We need images of genitalia because human sexuality is an extremely important area to educate people about. I'm afraid you have shown your true colours here, your nomination is not about this image being removable, which frankly is not a reason for deletion anyway, but because you simply don't like it. I move for a speedy keep in light of this. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn´t matter if we´ve any images of genitalia. -- Gegensystem (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment in my opinion, this requests shows signs of emotional colo[u]ring. Any decision should be made based on clear facts and policies; In cases like this, !votes are easily emotionally attached, and should be taken lightly unless they shows a clear objective statement for or against the image in question. →AzaToth 14:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - user uploaded more than 50 penises. None of them is in use and none of them adds anything to the existing collection. So delete per COM:NUDE and because of Commons is not a personal web host. Maybe we should also have a look at the other uploads of this user - Jcb (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- So what if the user uploaded lots of penises, I upload lots of trains, pretty much every uploader has something they upload a lot of, and frankly of my 2k+ uploads probably 90% of them are unused. Unused does not mean useless. This image is a high quality image and is not something we have similar images to. For that reason alone it should be kept. We have no other images in Category:Ejaculation showing the scrotal contraction that is so evident in this image. Few of the other images are so well-lit as this one, and none are from the side like this is. I honestly wonder sometimes whether the people arguing here that "it is nothing we don't have elsewhere" have even bothered looking at the image they are voting on. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do posts to everyone who is with me. In fact, accept that there are people, thinking in other ways than you do. -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I do posts to people who I see as claiming the image is easily replaceable but never explaining exactly with what. There are no similar images to this, when this is pointed out to them directly people just start creating new arguments. Like this one which you are using to avoid answering my question. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wich question? -- Gegensystem (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which images that we have do you believe show this in better quality thus by your logic making this image removable? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wich question? -- Gegensystem (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I do posts to people who I see as claiming the image is easily replaceable but never explaining exactly with what. There are no similar images to this, when this is pointed out to them directly people just start creating new arguments. Like this one which you are using to avoid answering my question. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- You do posts to everyone who is with me. In fact, accept that there are people, thinking in other ways than you do. -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Jcb, Per Ottava. If Commons doesn't have enough photos of penises to be "educational" then perhaps those seeking to be "educated" should go elsewhere. I mean, come on people. No pun intended. I really have no clue why people are throwing such fits about one more penis being lost to the internet. I can point you in the direction of a few free websites one can go to for "further education," with better quality images. Missvain (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt there are some penis images that can be deleted, and in fact there are many penis DRs that I support, but this image is not one which is similar to any other penis image, and therefore its removal would adversely affect our repository. Please stop mistaking my wish to have this image as kept as simply a wish to see more penises, because, like you said I could look elsewhere if I wanted that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck, given your ongoing responses at this page, you seem really worried about this particular file. Does it depict your own penis? Jcb (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Jcb, Is that statement even relevant in this discussion? →AzaToth 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Mattbuck, given your ongoing responses at this page, you seem really worried about this particular file. Does it depict your own penis? Jcb (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt there are some penis images that can be deleted, and in fact there are many penis DRs that I support, but this image is not one which is similar to any other penis image, and therefore its removal would adversely affect our repository. Please stop mistaking my wish to have this image as kept as simply a wish to see more penises, because, like you said I could look elsewhere if I wanted that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I have no problem or interest with this picture -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep : Wiki is not censored. I think the nominator has nominated several ejaculation images. For example [4] and [5] and [6]. There are very few images of this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethwarp (talk • contribs) 2011-10-03T03:55:35 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ejaculation.JPG){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ejaculate577.JPG){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ejaculating_penis.jpg){kind=link}
- @Missvain. Pl understand that images available on Wiki are for free use to everyone and they can use those images in any project outside wiki also. But images available on other sites or sat porn sites are not for free use. If someone has donated image of ejaculation of high quality what is the need to delete it. Otherwise, change the policy of Wiki and make it censored site but that is not possible because in an encyclopaedia you are supposed to find everything weather u like it or not.Jethwarp (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Undel requested: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:TimTight_ejaculation_jpg.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete there are still several other pictures, showing the ejaculation action in a much better way! Gegensystem (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the only one with a similar view is File:Sperme.jpg, and that shows an uncircumcised penis whereas this is circumcised and has a lot more ejaculate. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then apparently you believe we have better images from a similar view. Please show us these images. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The category is full of images, maybe not in every 1.000.000.000 different angles, but this image does not give additional educational value. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep having some better images is not actually a reason to delete this one. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We only have 44 images of human ejaculation - and several are already nominated for deletion. We do not editorialize other projects (@"showing the ejaculation action in a much better way") and are there to provide a selection of images. No reason for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have to say, I think it's terribly funny that so many people (I am presuming men) are so serious and into discussions about male cum shots. I opened up the "Ejaculation" category and started to feel sick just looking at it. Christ. We have a lot of cum shot photos. Gahhh....and I don't feel any better educated..lol. ;) Missvain (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't find it in the least bit funny that the (apparently North American) "anti-pornography" paranoia and "moral" stance that some try to promote on Wikimedia projects has resulted in previous purges of potentially educational and cultural images from Commons on completely biased and arbitrary grounds. Your amusement at those that might be concerned about these types of deletions seems intended to marginalise the issue and stereotype anyone who wishes to discuss the matter in an adult fashion. I know you do good work elsewhere and you are aware of the wide range of contributions I make; if you are not prepared to research the issues and policy behind these discussions and treat those that contribute in these difficult areas with respect, I suggest you stick to your comfort zone. I am sure that there are plenty of non-sexual categories that would make you feel sick where you would not think of making such comments, try Category:Diseases and disorders of the skin and its subcategories as a starting point. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral I have no problem or interest with this picture -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Undel requested: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Ejaculate577.JPG --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete There are many other pictures showing a better ejaculation view. Gegensystem (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - we have no similar images. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- Is our nominator's personal opinion that other images are superior relevant, if all the images are in scope? Geo Swan (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As not per nominator. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Many similar images, this image lacks any quality or use to make it worth keeping. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please, show us what images you believe are similar to this. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Every image here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh bullshit, not one of those other images is close to this one - few have the same angle and none have the act of ejaculating onto someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- How many angles does Commons need before it becomes redundant? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. A new angle of view, for me, means a new information in the picture. On many pictures i´ve nominated, nothing can be seen more on the picture. But there are users who wnats to keep all pictures, because every penis is different, of course, every human is different. I think, we don´t need so much photos of exactly the same action. For myself, commons is a collection of photos, showing different actions, buildings, etc. and every photo has much new information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegensystem (talk • contribs)
- I don't want to keep every penis, but does it not strike anyone as important to have images of ejaculation on to someone else's body? This is currently our only photo of that. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure it is the only one? Did you spend a few hours looking through them all? :) I'm kinda sure that Category:Facial cumshot includes people being ejaculated on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just found Category:Semen on partner's body. Looks like we have a couple images of people being ejaculated on. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Two other photos of non-facials? That's not exactly many, and none are similar to this. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Our nominator asserts there are commons contributors who "want to keep every penis". I simply don't believe this is true. Ronald Reagan, not a friend to the environment, famously said, "If you have seen one redwood you have seen them all". It has seemed to me that in other discussions, and in this discussion, the nominator's position was "If you have seen one woodie you have seen them all." I've argued against this position -- that we need a range of images related to human sexuality, one that includes representantive images from across the ranges of human body types, ages, health, ethnic groups. In these discussions I have never seen anyone argue to "keep all penises". My argument may be the closest I have seen to "keep all penises" and it is very far from keep all penises. I am doing my best not to be angry over this false claim. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to keep every penis, but does it not strike anyone as important to have images of ejaculation on to someone else's body? This is currently our only photo of that. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. A new angle of view, for me, means a new information in the picture. On many pictures i´ve nominated, nothing can be seen more on the picture. But there are users who wnats to keep all pictures, because every penis is different, of course, every human is different. I think, we don´t need so much photos of exactly the same action. For myself, commons is a collection of photos, showing different actions, buildings, etc. and every photo has much new information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegensystem (talk • contribs)
- How many angles does Commons need before it becomes redundant? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh bullshit, not one of those other images is close to this one - few have the same angle and none have the act of ejaculating onto someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Every image here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please, show us what images you believe are similar to this. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment We have something like 30,000 images under Category:Flowers. Isn't human sexuality orders of magnitude more important than vegetable sexuality? Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are millions of different genetic types of flowers. 99% of these penises are all white. So, lets cut down the amount of white penises to how many redundant pictures we have of completely similar flowers. That would leave us with maybe 10 images total. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- So, does this mean we need more Global-south penises? ;) - Theo10011 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I uploaded an additional 30,000 images of the sexual organs of plants I wouldn't argue that we should start deleting some of the older images of the sexual organs of plants. If they were in scope prior the uploading of new and (possibly) superior images they remain in scope afterwards. Why should we delete older in scope images related to human sexuality? Human sexuality is important. Many people's health is at risk due to lack of access to public health instruction on safe sex, on child birth, on prenatal care. We need images of pregnant women. Ideally we would have side view and front view images, taken every couple of weeks, of particular pregnant women, representing a cross section of ages, sizes, ethnic groups, states of health. This would be hundreds of images. Before and after images juveniles, showing the changes due to puberty would be good. As with the pregnant women a range of images across ethnic groups, sizes and states of health would be ideal. Images taken in a lab, with the faces cropped would work for me. But we have to work with the images available under a free liscense.
Often those arguing for deletion of images related to human sexuality assert they can't imagine an educational use for the image -- but by doing I suggest they are actually illustrating a lack of imagination.
With categories related to other topics, when a category gets too large some clever person, or persons, figures out a way to break those images down into useful subcategories. Why shouldn't that generally be our approach for these images? Really, why?
Why should we have more than a dozen images of adult male sexual organs? Because billions of humans have never seen one live an in person. Many prepubescent boys will never have seen one, in person. Many women or girls will have never seen a penis, in person, either because they have never had sex, or their only experience of sex was in the dark. Providing good images is a public health issue, and it justifies having lot of images. I won't start worrying that we have too many images related to human sexuality until we have as many as we do of the sexual organs of plants. Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are millions of different genetic types of flowers. 99% of these penises are all white. So, lets cut down the amount of white penises to how many redundant pictures we have of completely similar flowers. That would leave us with maybe 10 images total. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. And for this senseless flower "argument": feel free and nominate some for deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing administrator, please ignore this response because as a suggestion I make a time wasting disruptive gesture to try to prove a point it is itself disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin, please ignore this response because it cannot be that at least in few categories some users try to level up quality and adress issues of scope. Or to put it in other words: I wonder what would have happened, if someone nominated redundant de facto duplicates of flower pictures. I guess he would state that we have over thousands of images of the sexual organs of humans and hence, because they are all in scope, why a single picture should be deleted.
- Deletions requests of images is simply a manpower problem, so feel free to nominate plant pictures. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Did you see any nomination by Gegensystem involving a flower? Isn't it just a witch hunt? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing administrator, please ignore this response because as a suggestion I make a time wasting disruptive gesture to try to prove a point it is itself disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep : Wiki is not censored. I think the nominator has nominated several ejaculation images. For example [7] and [8] and [9]. There are very few images of this category.Jethwarp (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TimTight_ejaculation_jpg.jpg){kind=link}
- There are over 100 ejaculation images according to the category. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- That really is like saying that we don't need images of a Volkswagen Jetta because we have photos of the Citroen 2CV and that's a car too.... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, are you really saying a minor physical activity which pretty much looks the same no matter what is comparable to different cars which have large marketing campaigns, reviews, etc? And by the way, I don't think we should have any images of cars because unlike what some people claim, the outside are for decoration and thus do not qualify to be PD or sold by us. So you are barking up the wrong tree on that one. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- That really is like saying that we don't need images of a Volkswagen Jetta because we have photos of the Citroen 2CV and that's a car too.... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Pl understand that images available on Wiki are for free use to everyone and they can use those images in any project outside wiki also. But images available on other sites or sat porn sites are not for free use. If someone has donated image of ejaculation of high quality what is the need to delete it. Otherwise, change the policy of Wiki and make it censored site but that is not possible because in an encyclopaedia you are supposed to find everything weather u like it or not.Jethwarp (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep How many images has Commons of men ejaculating on others people ankles? 100, No! 10, No! Thats right this image in scope is unique of an act that is a major physical activity. Why is it that the argument of redundancy (almost) only appears on nude on sexual related images? Some people should see more Monty Python. Tm (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I think that's a woman's knee. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- How many pictures does Commons have of woman having sex with a horse? None. Just because you can point out something doesn't mean we need it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- That would be because possession of beastiality images is illegal... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying we have content restrictions besides copyright. Omai, I would have never have known that based on some people's comments. ;) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course we do, we are explicitly forbidden from hosting content which is illegal in Florida. This is not such an illegal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying we have content restrictions besides copyright. Omai, I would have never have known that based on some people's comments. ;) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- That would be because possession of beastiality images is illegal... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Undel requested: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Ejaculation.JPG --Saibo (Δ) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted per [10]. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
there are several other pictures showing the same action in a better way. Gegensystem (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - our only example of preejaculate from an uncircumcised penis at this angle. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Reason according to Commons:Nudity#New uploads, we have already many, many images, "at this angle" is ridicolous (there are endless possible angles). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- By angle I mean "from above". Not every possible angle, just in the general area of "above". -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 21 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) 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please note Hold and Wave has been temporarily blocked for copy/pasting such comments (see COM:AN/U). -mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral - uploaders only contributions are unused penises, most of them add nothing to our collection, but for this case I tend to agree with the 'angle' argument - Jcb (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader's other contributions appear to be of a circumcised penis. How confident are we that this one is actually "own work"? Powers (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agree -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per concensus Jcb (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
