Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a copyvio to me, possibly a composite from the website. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems doubtful given the very low res, border and lack of metadata. A few googleimage matches, but smaller. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, unlikely to be own work (see watermark) Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a publication. "Own work" claim not credible. ELEKHHT 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a publication. "Own work" claim not credible. ELEKHHT 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo/art work. Orphaned, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork. Orphaned. One of two uploads by user ever, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Error image. Orphaned. Missvain (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong upload. Rmdl2006 (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaders request. Martin H. (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong upload. Rmdl2006 (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaders request. Martin H. (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
marked as copyvio of all of users uploads appear to be copyright violations, probably pulled from http://colornook.org/, in the talk page the users that he/she is the owner, I can't find on that site the copyvio Ezarateesteban 01:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
i don't now Lvardan10 (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, presumably because it is not own work. Wknight94 talk 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how to upload common creative licensed pictures. Jay2kx (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: tagged as cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 by uploader. Túrelio (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Recent building with an original architecture. There is no freedom or panorama in France. ~ Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Coyau as part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:AstraZenecaDunkerque.jpg. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Appears to be taken from [1] this article at Time Inc; the cropping is identical. Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep The article in question has the URL http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658043,00.html (emphasis mine). The image in question was uploaded in 2006. How did the uploader take an image from an article published the year after the upload? Need evidence that the time image wasn't just taken from commons. Monty845 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure the article isnt using commons image? this is translated image description:
"Image Description: Ferrari Mondial 8 rear, taken in Swansea, Wales Source: A. Wart (user, enthusiast, own photo) Photo: A. Wart Datum: 23.06.1997 Miscellaneous: JPEG image, Dimensions, 572 x 250, 54kb License: I agree the public domain and license to publish the image." Typ932 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Seams obvious to me, that it's the other way around. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously a case of re-use of this image in Time magazine. Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
superseded: The same model (Ferrari Mondial 8) can be seing in much better quality under this url (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_Mondial_8_front_left.jpg). Other images of this car (Ferrari Mondial) in much better quality can also be seen under wiki.commons and articles in most languages on wikipedia. Enthusiast (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion --MB-one (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Daphne Lantier 19:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Seeking review to see if this is out of copyright. If so, delete, if not, cool! Missvain (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. copyright vio. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like copyrighted cover art. Dominic (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Source web page is © Copyright 2007-2011, Информационное Агентство "The First News", All Rights Reserved. ~ NVO (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Source = internet. Author = internet. Subject = living person. ~ NVO (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image. Dominic (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Don't understand why this needs to be deleted? It's a screencap and is perfectly fine. Tellow (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tellow, can you provide evidence that you own the copyright to the video that this screen capture was taken from? Dominic (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I got it from a Wikipedia mirror site which shown the Charlie Stubbs article as it was a few years back - with the image. The image was deleted from Wikipedia after the article was redirected but since I created the article again, it deserves to be back. Tellow (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tellow, can you provide evidence that you own the copyright to the video that this screen capture was taken from? Dominic (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Coronation Street is copyrighted to Granada Television during 2003–07 (the years this character existed). A screen capture is a derivative work that is void of creative input required for any new copyright to be produced. Regardless, the underlying copyright still exists and cannot be denied. Granada Television's permission is required to release this for "free" use and I seriously do not see that happening. This would have been better speedied with {{Copyvio}} instead of being brought to DR. Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I have now provided a source - it was not solely release by me. Tellow (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It does not matter. To repeat again, Granada Television's permission is required to release this for "free" use. Do you understand that? Jappalang (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Fan versions of cover art is out of scope; I doubt all the component parts of the image are licensed under a free license that doesn't even demand attribution Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted already -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted website. Dominic (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete There is a better view of the same action available. In that photo the main opjective is the man in the middle not the action itself. ==> Strap-on pegging.jpg Gegensystem (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This is no duplicate of File:Strap-on pegging.jpg, that the latter provides a "better view" is your subjective POV. --Vydra (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- But what is the educational aspect of that view? What can we learn from that picture? I don´t know any reason why we should keep it. -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- We see different parts of the persons involved, that's enough. The one thing we can learn from this deletion request (as well as from the others made by you) is that you obviously don't know much about Commons. --Vydra (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- But what is the educational aspect of that view? What can we learn from that picture? I don´t know any reason why we should keep it. -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It is a different picture. Commons has images of the same object or situation from different angles all the time. Handcuffed (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Different pictures, that you think one angle is better is not a reason for deletion, it's within scope, good quality... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete The picture is showing a brutal action to another person. I see a risk, that some is learning that action on wikipedia commons for doing that to another person, wich consider a criminal act. We should not support these acts. The pictures is linked to an articel, decribing this action. I think we even don´t need the illustration of it. Gegensystem (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Falls within the project scope, is being used by wikipedia, it should be kept per Commons:Not_censored. Monty845 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I hate to say it, but, it is being used and regardless of "not being censored" it's acceptable to have this image on Commons as it is (thankfully) our only illustration of this sexual act. Better a drawing than real people! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hope the picture filters of wikipedia is coming very soon. We have to protect our Childrens of seeing this. -- Gegensystem (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Just don't look at it, if you can't stand it, thats the best image filter you can/will get. Otherwise perfectly in scope and i also pfeffere a simple drawing in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I hope our children can be protected from people like Gegensystem. --Don-kun (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- This comment is personal and stupid! And i ignore it (you). -- Gegensystem (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Please protect our children from positions like this. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We don't care about the legality of what our media depict, as long as the media itself is legal. In use, not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Simply the same picture, same angle of view as ==> Harmony Rose at Erotica LA 2006 4.JPG Gegensystem (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. No it isn't, File:Harmony Rose at Erotica LA 2006 4.JPG is a different picture taken at different time and not a duplicate. --Vydra (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Vydra -- nominator seems to have not been wearing their glasses when they asserted these two similar images were identical. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need two pictures of the same action? The explanation given above means, that the second one is a newer Version of the first one. So there is another way to uplaod a newer version and not to uplaod it as an independent picture.-- Gegensystem (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- In general, when we have multiple images of the same topic, we keep all that are in scope, without regard to whether particular contributors prefer one image to another. You have initiated about a dozen nominations today for the same reason -- you thought the images were too similar, and you preferred one image to another. I suggest you withdraw all these nominations, because they are not policy-based. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note, we have over 30,000 images of the sexual organs of flowering plants. Why? Because we don't generally delete in-scope images when someone thinks a related image is superior. Geo Swan (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not the reason. Noone is nomating them for deletion. That's all. Besides, delete, cos out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do we usually characterize an image of an individual as out of scope when one of our sibling projects has an article on that individual? Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do we need e.g. 30,000 images of an individual according to your quesiton just because someone thinks they are all in scope? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not the reason. Noone is nomating them for deletion. That's all. Besides, delete, cos out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need two pictures of the same action? The explanation given above means, that the second one is a newer Version of the first one. So there is another way to uplaod a newer version and not to uplaod it as an independent picture.-- Gegensystem (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS approved, even though I do agree one photo like this is good enough, it's here to stay due to policy. Missvain (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I guess i don't need to repeat the arguments. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not the same as the other picture, please get your eyes tested. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
jlkklk KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The "comment" area of "File history" contains my complete name and I don't want to share this information. Xabi1980 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and reupload with username. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source states: 'all rights reserved' Jcb (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Ctruongngoc (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
COPYVIO Ctruongngoc (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Ctruongngoc (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Bapti ✉ 16:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
no evidence that this image is actually available under creative commons, accompanying wikipedia article on the subject is a copyvio as well RadioFan (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission as per the nomination russavia (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no evidence of license, out of scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission russavia (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if a graphical depiction of someone's written imagination could be described as "derivative work", I could imagine that this painting is such a derivative work made out of Tolkien's ideas. I guess that's worth a discussion. Grand-Duc (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep reading COM:FAN, I'm going to say that provided we're just working off a literary description, and not copying something from a graphical source like the movies, I think we're fine. I might question its educational value, but it's clearly in heavy use over an extended period of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference to the fanart policy, I did not know about it until now! :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping this in the basis of argument put forward by Prosfilaes. COM:FAN appears to allow such pieces as this, and as it is in heavy usage, it is clearly within scope. russavia (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to me that this logo might be more than just simple geometric shapes, ans that PD-Tet might not apply. Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok so the logo file of Beijing subway also need to be deleted? rofl --Jimmy3421 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is my interpretation that this is indeed PD-textlogo, and am keeping it upon that basis. russavia (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this logo is not simply PD-Text logo Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The text is free, the logo is not russavia (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgive my skepticism, but I have a suspicion the uploader wasn't alive in 1920. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I trust your suspicion :) Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this would have been speediable :) russavia (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No source, no permission, out of scope, likely a personal photo Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Most likely not a NASA created photo. :) Missvain (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, user on Flickr is not likely to be the real author Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from here: http://bigredinsider.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=23&id=15695&Itemid=169 Ytoyoda (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's a message board, I am the poster CardAmbassador who uploaded it there too, if you want proof click on the profile and my name shows up. So if you delete this photo I will just re upload because it is mine.ThomasHorn7 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can you do a better job of distinguishing between photos from the official Lamar University sites/Facebook profile and the ones you actually took? Because right now, all your uploads are marked as your own work. --Ytoyoda (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Any of the newer uploads are my own work, all of the deleted files were uploaded before I knew much about wikipedia. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Which works are from facebook? Can you give me an example? Again this is my work, I have released it to Wikipedia. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can you do a better job of distinguishing between photos from the official Lamar University sites/Facebook profile and the ones you actually took? Because right now, all your uploads are marked as your own work. --Ytoyoda (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We are assuming good faith here. The uploader will be asked to send in OTRS permission, and will also be asked to make an edit with his username on the forum confirming the release under a free licence. russavia (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Small res version of a high school mascot. We have a larger version here if we need to keep both. Missvain (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: it's scaled down duplicate russavia (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned logo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, out of scope personal artwork. Missvain (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Hi. I see no reason why this image ought to be deleted. What do you mean 'out of scope personal artwork'? It's categorized as a copyright symbol, so there is nothing 'out of scope' about it. Category: Symbols of Copyright-Copyleft greetings, Niek
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, orphaned photo of a non-notable band. Missvain (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio.
- It's not a personal image. The character with the beard, Aleksey Plutser-Sarnov, has an article in Russian wikipedia: ru:Плуцер-Сарно, Алексей Юрьевич. And the beard is real. This is the least offending photo from the en:Fuck for the heir Puppy Bear! underground orgy performed by the en:Voina on February 29, 2008. It made big news in Russian press of the time, circulated in Western press (the black banner appears e.g. in this Reuters newsreel: http://vimeo.com/10365363) - and was in fact Voina's first publicity stunt.
- The only photographer present at the orgy was Plutser himself. Who pressed the shutter remains unknown, but for all practical purposes the media credits Plutser as the photographer and the first publicator in his blog, http://plucer.livejournal.com/55710.html?format=light. No permission = copyvio. NVO (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- If it's not obvious, clicking the links or googling the subject may be NSFW. NVO (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per information from NVO russavia (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, orphaned logo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Very low quality, orphaned image of euro converters. I think we have better images. Can be deleted. Missvain (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Band logo of uploader. Non-notable and out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Very low res image, orphaned, we have better documentation of this subject. Only upload by user. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --JN466 21:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:37, 19 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) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you find many women keep their breasts in their trousers? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Quality way too low to be useful. --Leyo 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material. out of scope Missvain (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, orphaned, only upload by user. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material. Orphaned, only image by uploader. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Small promotional image from flickr account. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, orphaned, only upload by user. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Photograph from copyrighted website. Not pubilc domain. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this is uploader's own work, rather than a DW of the seal of the LAPD ASD (a division of a municipal police department). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I guess it isn't free being a Seal of a municipal police department. I'll upload it on Wikipedia and apply the proper tags Jetijones (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Collage of someone else's work(s), no attribution, no permissions in sight NVO (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Adding to this nomination more photographs from Category:Paolo Piria (who is a living Italian, ru:Пириа, Паоло and seems unrelated to Paolo Piria from IMDB). All feature contemporary art on display in Italy - no FOP for graphic works:
- File:Paolo Piria Chiostro regina Margherita Sassari.JPG
- File:Паоло Пириа Фанданго.jpg
- File:Expo 2.JPG
- File:Vetrina 1.jpg
- File:Interno 2.jpg
- File:Interno 1.jpg
- File:Paolo Piria Segariu 2.jpg
- File:Paolo Piria inaugurazione del museo.jpg
- File:Paolo Piria Fandango Sala cinema.jpg
- File:Paolo Piria Chiostro regina Margherita Sassari.JPG
Maybe others too; you decide. It all looks like a promotion of an upstart Italian gallery. If not, why there's nothing on this artist in it- and en- wikis? NVO (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably copyvio: can be found numerous places online including, but not limited to, here and here, both being published well before this image was uploaded. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Source: Internet. Author: I. Bogus license for a map in Russian produced in post-WW2 period. ~ NVO (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Source: Internet. Author: Football club from Bulgaria. Presume copyvio. Uploader's name matches the name of the club, but it surely doesn't look like "an official account". NVO (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free software (http://xserver.a-real.ru/ © 2009 А-Реал Консалтинг. Все права защищены - All rights reserved ). ~ NVO (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Creators of this logo, shaboopie.org. released it under non-commercial license: http://www.shaboopie.com/ (bottom of page). ~ NVO (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A for-profit soccer website released their logo to public domain? No way. No trust. ~ NVO (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's no trace of evidence that the website owners, or their web designer, released their headline logo under a free license (© 2009–2011 EcoRussia.info). ~ NVO (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a person who lived from 1930 to 1999. Doubtful "own work" (uploader is a corporate account of a library in Ukraine). ~ NVO (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-promotion of a not notable person (in terms of encyclopedic value) High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - per nomination. Unused, uncategorized. --ŠJů (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-promotion of a not notable person (in terms of encyclopedic value) High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ice Myspace Logo.png --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-promotion of a not notable person (in terms of encyclopedic value) High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment It would have been better to wait a little bit and ask him what he intended to do with those files. For instance, he could want to use it on his profile pages, which would be allowed by the Commons rules. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC) PS: but it seems that he has no other account than his Commons profile (at least no accound on this name on English and German Wikipedias).
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-promotion of a not notable person (in terms of encyclopedic value) High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ice Myspace Logo.png --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-promotion of a not notable person (in terms of encyclopedic value) High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ice Myspace Logo.png --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of sculpture, no FOP for sculptures in the US. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Screenshot of a webcast (http://vimeo.com/ecctv), no evidence of a free license. ~ NVO (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Low-res screenshot of a non-free site, © 2007-2010 Digimedia.ru. ~ NVO (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope advertising. Trycatch (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yet another unidentified logo. No description. Unused and without description is without use. Queeg (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
source and authorship unclear 78.55.212.61 15:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing source information. Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
source and authorship unclear 78.55.212.61 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing source information. Martin H. (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Without description, out of scope and low quality image Queeg (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photo, out of scope per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Cannot confirm license, promoting a web site that no longer exists, etc. Queeg (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Terrible quality, as well. Missvain (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted movie screenshot. Dominic (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 13:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Undocumented promotional image which is unuseful, etc. Queeg (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
logo of not notable sport club Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional, user art, unused, out of scope. Queeg (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Un-described, unused, not enough information to be useful Queeg (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; tiny photo of building, undescribed, orphan, uncategorized since 2008. Infrogmation (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused, no article on es.wikipedia for the character, more like personal artwork outside the scope. Queeg (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not enough information provided about this unused graph making it useless. Queeg (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Probably to complex for PD-ineligible. Certainly not CC-BY-SA. Yann (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- suggestion. If it's about copyright of the green cockroach emblem, it should be a mass nom for Category:Android logos. All or nothing. NVO (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- weak keep. So far the cockroach logo was accepted here based on android.com licensing policy. http://www.android.com/branding.html says: you can commercially use the Android Bot graphics (the green cockroach) "under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license" but not the Android typeface and not the Android logo. So, graphics are ok, text is apparently not. However, wikimedia commons does not recognize copyright on custom typefaces. Custom text logos (Disney, McDonalds arches) were discussed and kept as {{PD-ineligible}}. Weak keep because it's a small-res jpg inferior to existing SVG files. NVO (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Google does allow CC-BY-SA use of the ANdroid logo, see the images in Category:Android logos. As to this image, it is in use in dawiki, so kept. NVO has a point, if someone wants to challenge the acceptability of the Android logo here, a mass DR would be more suitable than individual DR's such as this one. Without the copyright issue settled, that the DAWP has this in use, the argument about being inferior to other files falls away, and we are left with a keep. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by (older) official SVG duplicate. Inferior, unused, out of scope. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate, not used. Yann (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted webpage. Dominic (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo of the Adventist Churches (fair use in en-wiki). ~ NVO (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Source: Internet. Author: Photographer. Watermarked. Who made the photo, who published it? More curious (although irrelevant to the outcome of this DR), is it governed by German or by Polish copyright laws? ~ NVO (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Either way, it is just randomly pulled from the internet without permission Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not used on any Wikimedia project, and has not enough relevance (better and more relevant pictures are available on Commons). Rymm (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep He is a notable person, "not used" is not a reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed a notable person. Keep. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Trycatch --Jarekt (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded solely for use in a deleted SEO spam article on Swedish Wikipedia. Outside of Commons' project scope and questionable copyright claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OUt of scope Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded solely for use in a deleted SEO spam article on Swedish Wikipedia. Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OUt of scope Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
From the date, I assume the painting is from 1990, so does not qualify for PD-Art yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The architect is François-Benjamin Chaussemiche, dead in 1945, so 66 years ago, not 70 as the French law requires. There is no FoP in France. Sebleouf (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The architect is François-Benjamin Chaussemiche, dead in 1945, so 66 years ago, not 70 as the French law requires. There is no FoP in France. Sebleouf (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
low resolution, image used widely in advertisements. Unlikely own. Higher resolution version available here with info in metadata: "Creator: Marie-Amélie JOURNEL" Ankry (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: this is another image than processed in the DR above. The older one is subject to UDR, currently. Ankry (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The architect is François-Benjamin Chaussemiche, dead in 1945, so 66 years ago, not 70 as the French law requires. There is no FoP in France. Sebleouf (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Hegavive (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreed with EugeneZelenko Courcelles (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Steven Tyler.png. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by HAndreao (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Enriqueosorio2000 (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don´t know what this picture is meaning? Everybody can draw such stuff, why do we need something in the commons? Gegensystem (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What harm is there in keeping an(other) example of a vandalised traffic sign? --Vydra (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- And waht is the eductaional aspect of that picture? Not to harm a traffic sign, or not to harm a traffix sign in thaht way. Also there is a kategorie for sexual content.How does a harmed traffic sign belong to sexuall activities? -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- We see a vandalised traffic sign, that's educational enough if you want to inform yourself about vandalism. The category question has nothing to do with the deletion request, please discuss it elsewhere. --Vydra (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- And waht is the eductaional aspect of that picture? Not to harm a traffic sign, or not to harm a traffix sign in thaht way. Also there is a kategorie for sexual content.How does a harmed traffic sign belong to sexuall activities? -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Semantics, use, distribution and modifications of specific graphic symbols is a relevant and serious topic (see Píča as an example) and this image is a good and fitting illustration. The fact that one user is not able to acquaint himself with its meaning doesn't mean that the image has no educational benefit. Yes, everybody can built or do whatever but this fact doesn't mean that nothing should be documented. The symbol is naturally categorized according to its meaning. --ŠJů (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deleiton Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot. Dominic (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete educational importance questionable! Gegensystem (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - just about our only photo of sexual penetrative use of non-dildos. Other pictures are either drawings, purpose-made sex toys or a toothbrush. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as mattbuck said ... --Don-kun (talk) 12:52, 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)
- Do you even look at the images up for deletion, or do you actually just c/p the same remark into every DR, regardless of content? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The quality isn't that great, but, people do use these things as sex toys, and such. I changed the description a bit. Missvain (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
31.57.143.7 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No new reason for deletion given. Image is still of good quality and in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept - no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Same picture from a better angle available ==> Dede Cucumber 0433.jpg Gegensystem (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. File:Dede Cucumber 0433.jpg is not the "Same picture from a better angle", it is a different picture, not a duplicate. No reason for deletion. --Vydra (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- But almost the same angle. There is nothing to see more on that picture then on the other one. So why do we need such a series of photos? -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- You obviously do not know much about Commons. Commons is not a media repository that hosts only one image of each particular subject. The photos are different, the model has totally different facial expressions, why limit ourselves to only one image? Why have several hundred or thousand images of essentially the same animals, butterflies etc.? Because variety matters, that's why. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harmony Rose at Erotica LA 2006 3.JPG for more arguments about this. Your narrow-minded approach that images should be deleted because we have similar ones is not welcome. --Vydra (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not the reason. Noone is nomating them for deletion. That's all. Besides, delete, cos out of scope. Do I speak with Geo? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You obviously do not know much about Commons. Commons is not a media repository that hosts only one image of each particular subject. The photos are different, the model has totally different facial expressions, why limit ourselves to only one image? Why have several hundred or thousand images of essentially the same animals, butterflies etc.? Because variety matters, that's why. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harmony Rose at Erotica LA 2006 3.JPG for more arguments about this. Your narrow-minded approach that images should be deleted because we have similar ones is not welcome. --Vydra (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- But almost the same angle. There is nothing to see more on that picture then on the other one. So why do we need such a series of photos? -- Gegensystem (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Other stuff exists" is not valid deletion reason. Perfectly in scope and acceptable quality. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Practically a duplicated image, not useful. No possible reason to host it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep By far not a dupe! --Leyo 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Theo10011 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a duplicate, it's from a distinctly different angle. Commons is not engaging in a quest to crush each category down to just one file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the original nomination reason is not a policy reason for deletion, and further I disupte that reason - if anything, 0437 is a superior image to 0433. Also, per Prosfilaes, we do not mind having many images of the same thing, as long as they are good quality - both images are 10MP and perfectly in focus. They show the same thing from different angles - why is that suddenly a crime? Further, to counter Yikrazuul, this is NOT out of scope - it's within a category of what is not an especially unusual sex act. I just wonder how many of these delete arguments are simply to cover "I don't like it"s. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- What thing, the cucumber or the need to show every vegetable in every thinkable position? I wonder how many of those "keep" arguments are simply to cover "I don't care about quality and scope". --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, I do not think we need to show every conceivable sex act with every conceivable vegetable, but if we have them I don't think we should delete them simply because someone judges them unnecessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- What thing, the cucumber or the need to show every vegetable in every thinkable position? I wonder how many of those "keep" arguments are simply to cover "I don't care about quality and scope". --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope, DR's are not the place to decide which angle of two similar pictures is superior, and per Mattbuck Courcelles (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Image belongs to the British Broadcasting Corporation and therefore fair use. Subject is also living. Cloudbound (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Could, and likely should, have been a speedy Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Small, un-described, unused, not useful without description and also unable to verify license. Queeg (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --JN466 21:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need another poor-quality, blurry picture of what looks to be a boy in his underwear. Out of project scope, no educational purpose. ~ Dominic (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, orphaned and only contribution ever by user since 2009. We have plenty of better examples of this type of content. Missvain (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --JN466 21:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep we keep plenty of images far more blurry than this. Could be used to illustrate types of Haynes pants so potentially meets COM:SCOPE, I find this little worse that the masses of girls in bikinis that we do keep. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fæ, one concern is that the approach of allowing amateur uploads without prior peer review (like would be used prior to publication) is unsustainable. Unlike other WMF projects, Commons does not require evidence that the content uploaded meets a notability threshold. Or that the image meets a minimum standard of quality. We are getting more and more images that are low quality and poorly categorized. Especially for self uploaded images, I think that we need to hack away at the poor quality duplicate images so that we can keep the content volume at a manageable level. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Fae, could be used to illustrate the type of pants. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Very low quality image to the point that no one would choose to use it to illustrate an article when other images are easily available, such as this one. We have quite a few images of different kinds of underwear. When I looked through them fairly recently, I noticed that they were poorly categorized with lots of miscategorization by type. And there looked to be duplicate categories for very similar types of underwear. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missvain, Flonight, and Dominic all have somewhat different, but valid arugments. Out of scope as too blurry to be useful, and far superios examples exist. Courcelles (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot. Dominic (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not used, not enough information to be used, single upload. Queeg (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Useless, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotion-only screenshot of a business web site. The uploader claims it's PD but the site is still (c) http://dieselpro.com.ua/. Anyway, it's spam. ~ NVO (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No rights information pertile (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment For future reference, images without license info may simply be tagged with {{Nld}} and the user notified without listing them for deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about cc license. Jay2kx (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all rights reserved Denniss (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful license. Yann (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Esta imagem foi criada por mim "doctorbody" usuário da wiki commons. Direitos autorais são meus pois sua criação me pertence. Portanto seria um desrespeito e contra os critérios da wiki commons não manter uma imagem com um direito próprio do seu usuário expressando a sua própria história e o seu próprio trabalho sendo que a foto possui direitos autorais que me pertencem por ser minha imagem e inclusive os troféus são meus e estão em meu poder. Não vejo mais nada a esclarecer mas se houver gostaria que me dissesse qual seria a dúvida. Muito obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbody (talk • contribs)
- If I understood well, you created this patchwork... but did you take the photographs yourself ? (same question for the other files you uploaded). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Essa imagem é um Patchwork criado por mim, portanto afirmo e confirmo quantas vezes precisar que eu sou o autor da criação dessa imagem e as fotografias que a pertencem são de minha propriedade e também tiradas por mim. Isso também serve para as outras imagens que são de minha autoria sendo fotos tiradas com a minha máquina fotográfica e reveladas por mim. Obrigado.
- It's hard to trust you since this file is clearly a scan from a newspaper, therefore a copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sim. uma das fotos do patchwork é um scan de jornal que fala de mim. Inclusive eu estou na fotografia. Não posso pedir direitos autorais da minha própria história e imagem. Tenhos as fontes. Qual seria o problema? Se você possuísse uma matéria de jornal sobre a sua pessoa acharia correto alguém dizer que não te pertence? A matéria possui todas as fontes fiáveis sim. Está na Biblioteca Nacional e diz respeito á minha pessoa. Seria mais amigável que me dissesse o que precisa da imagem que prontamente disponibilizarei. Me diga por favor do que precisa. Tenho uma História que posso provar através de muitas fontes fiáveis, tais como encartes de jornais, revistas, de circulação pública. Como pode a Wikicommons não permitir informação aos seus usuários??? É a HIstória do Esporte do meu país. Posso provar com fontes fiáveis. Peça o que precisar, mas não negue informação. Vejo muitos conteúdos e artigos da Wikipédia e fotos da Wikicommons pobres de conteúdo e sem sentido algum. Não é este o meu caso. Tento contribuir com a História do Esporte no meu País e com fontes fiáveis.Posso disponibilizá-las. Por favor o que posso fazer para provar?
- Are you the model (the person on the photograph) or the photographer ? If an article speaks about you, the article is not your work therefore you have no right on it. Same thing for a picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Desculpe mas não existe nenhum artigo nesta foto. Não existe nenhum texto senão o feito por mim mesmo e repito com fontes fiáveis a provar. Eu sou o dono da minha imagem. Portanto se autorizei o uso de minha foto (imagem) em um documento é porque eu mesmo posso utilizá-la em qualquer outro local. Ou será que não sou dono da minha própria imagem? Portanto esse foi um trabalho de patchwork feito por mim com a minha imagem.Veja abaixo o significado de artigo: 1. artigo, significado - Veja no link: http://www.dicionarioinformal.com.br/definicao.php?palavra=artigo Enviado por Dicionário inFormal (SP) em 16-05-2008.
Exemplo: artigo, uma matéria, um texto sobre algum assunto que em geral tem uma posição bem determinada;.
- So you mean that the newspaper used a photograph taken by you ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Montage of unfree, not self-created photographs. Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Ctruongngoc (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If the picture has indeed been taken in 1910 (and there is no obvious reason to doubt it), there is a good chance the photographer died before 1941. Since the author is anonymous, it should be assumed this photo is now in the public domain.--Edelseider (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
FAUX EN ECRITURE, PLAGIAT PAR UN ADOLESCENT MINEUR, RECEL DE PLAGIAT ET DE FAUX EN ECRITURE : Bonsoir, Cette photo ne provient pas d'Archive Hettange ; c'est un faux en écriture utilisé par le plagieur pour ne pas révéler l'origine véritable de la photo. Il s'agit d'un scan effectué par le plagieur de la page 251 du livre HETTANGE et le Bassin de la KIESEL (Editions KLOPP 1995) par Philippe STACHOWSKI. La photo originale, a été réalisée par un membre de ma famille décédé il y a moins de 70 ans. Le document est unique et n'est absolument pas libre de droit. Bubudu57, l'auteur du plagiat a pu être identifié. Il a admis son "erreur". C'est un mineur. Son père m'a assuré que suite à mes réclamations plusieurs demandes ont été formulées auprès de vos modérateurs pour faire supprimer ce document de cette base. Qu'attendez vous ? Salutations --90.33.15.155 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Je rejoins l'avis général demandant la suppression de ces photos, téléchargées sur Commons par moi-même le 30 août dernier.
Copyvio Bubudu57 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)--Bapti ✉ 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Bapti ✉ 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Ctruongngoc (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Since it is a World War I photo, i. e. not taken after 1918, there is a fair probability that the photographer died before 1941. Since the author is anonymous, it should be assumed this photo is now in the public domain. --Edelseider (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
FAUX EN ECRITURE, PLAGIAT PAR UN ADOLESCENT MINEUR, RECEL DE PLAGIAT ET DE FAUX EN ECRITURE : Bonsoir Cette photo ne provient pas d'Archive Hettange ; c'est un faux en écriture utilisé par le plagieur pour ne pas révéler l'origine véritable de la photo. Il s'agit d'un scan effectué par le plagieur de la page 252 du livre HETTANGE et le Bassin de la KIESEL (Editions KLOPP 1995) par Philippe STACHOWSKI. La photo originale, a été réalisée par un membre de ma famille décédé il y a moins de 70 ans. Le document est unique et n'est absolument pas libre de droit. Bubudu57, l'auteur du plagiat a pu être identifié. Il a admis son "erreur". C'est un mineur. Son père m'a assuré que suite à mes réclamations plusieurs demandes ont été formulées auprès de vos modérateurs pour faire supprimer ce document de cette base. Qu'attendez vous ? Salutations --90.33.15.155 19:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Copyvio
Je rejoins l'avis général demandant la suppression de cette photo, téléchargée le 30 août dernier par moi-même sur Commons, et j'admets donc mon erreur.
Bubudu57 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Bapti ✉ 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
this is not a real svg but just a container for a raster image File:Blason-Famille-de-Méjanès.png Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- IL S'AGIT BIEN D'UN FICHIER VECTORIEL CREE SOUS INSKAPE le 10 X 2010, avec une réflexion suivant prescriptions aux UTILSATEURS pour les images/commons -- 11:45, 20 September 2011 User:ByacC
- Delete I downloaded it and opened it in a text editor, and there was no vector data. AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
JE refuse -- 06:37, 21 September 2011 ByacC
- Comment Bonjour, je suis désolé mais il y a du y avoir un problème car ce fichier n'est pas un vrai fichier vectoriel ; le format est bien vectoriel mais il contient uniquement une image matricielle. Pourrais-tu réessayer de ré-importer ce fichier ?
- De quelles prescriptions parles-tu ?
- Cordialement, VIGNERON (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Retracted since the problem was solved. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Google Earth/Maps. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Really is a capture of Google Maps, but I thought that it only is a satellital image that could be in Commons. If it's not possible, then it's ok to delete it. --Elisardojm (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope COMMONS:SCOPE, and no evidence of model consent Commons:PEOPLE. This is one of many images uploaded by this user of a family. It is possible a few members of the family are notable and we would want to obtain an properly licensed image of them. But I see no reason for us to include several generations of the family in a category. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - unused image which doesn't tell much. Epoch Fail (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: persons not notable, out of scope. Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1. CSASA permission may not be received until October. 2. file name includes a wrong date. Kildwyke (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously doubt this childish uploader (see comments on file description and user talk page) is the author. The image looks like a scan from a book. An earlier higher res scan is also at http://www.flickr.com/photos/aiboilic/97006332/in/pool-29912871@N00/ ELEKHHT 05:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is not a thing as "Contorium" Rapsar (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, Turkish internet gives thousands of hits. What's it all about? A regional internet meme? NVO (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Something like that.--Rapsar (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplication Xsaeef (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: of what? Jcb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Source: Internet. Author: Agency. 1945 Soviet photo from occupied Berlin. Presume first publication in the former USSR or in Russia (anything else is unlikely). ~ NVO (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I won't close this one, but the question is raised is if this would have also been simultaneously published in Ukraine, for example, because it could also be PD-Ukraine. Could, not necessarily definite. This issue should be looked at as well, so I won't close it, but will leave open for bit longer. russavia (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information to keep Jcb (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo of Gil Vicente football club (http://www.gilvicentefc.pt/site/bem-vindo-ao-site-oficial-do-gvfc/). Uploaded with weird Ukrainian spam links in {{Information}}. ??? ~ NVO (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Crest of a Bulgarian political party. Contrary to file description, the terms of use of their website say "All rights reserved" (Всички права запазени!): http://www.vmro.bg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=26. The crowned lion repeats the main charge of Bulgarian national COA, but in a different graphic style. NVO (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Artwork by a living Russian artist. No OTRS. Article in Russian wikipedia deleted, twice [2], hence no prospects of a formal OTRS process. ~ NVO (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. However I think it look like a simple construction if you ask me. MGA73 (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, it was built in 1979-1982, architect: Marco Scholl (spelling may be wrong, I'm transliterating from Cyrillic source). NVO (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the roof passes the threshold of originality Jcb (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
And all other uploads by user:Malishi23. All these files are sourced to a promo article on an indiscriminate "pool of everything" site, ultimately credited to a small-time internet retailer. Also reproduced elsewhere on similar sites. Actual photographer unknown, no evidence of a free license. NVO (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is own work? Seems unlikely. Professional photo with single-colour background, no metadata, strange on-image caption. Google gives several results, albeit smaller ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Spam: logo of a small-time company from Bulgaria. No use in sight. ~ NVO (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --P199 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright Bedwyr (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- "El autor original de las imágenes concedió permiso para que las imágenes sean utilizadas con el reconocimiento adecuado, y propósitos no comerciales"
- Delete That means non-commercial if I'm correct. ■ MMXX talk 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not a "simple photograph", but a work of art by an awarded photographer (Fosco Maraini) who did just seven years ago. Thanks to the restoration of PD-Italy through the backdoor, we can discuss such things again. Polarlys (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not a simple photograph. Lupo 10:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete including the PD-Italy zombie template. --rtc (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I recognize that it can be considered artistic. Anyway PD-italy should not be discussed here. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Photos need not be artistic anymore for copyrightability all over Europe since the EU law has come into effect (yes: I say law, against all anti-EU ressentiment which claims "oh its not a true law but can be ignored if local law that implements it can be interpreted in conflict with it"). This photo is not artistic; yet it is copyrighted because of said law. The primitive propaganda used to restore the template is invalid. You are perfectly right: PD-italy should not be discussed here. It should simply be deleted. Without further discussion. The deletion request decision remains entirely valid. --rtc (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- About PD-Italy I don't know the reasons for deleting and for "re-borning", so I don't discuss about it. About the picture there is also pd-1996 (was first published before 1978 outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) without complying with U.S. copyright formalities and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). And it was). So my opinion is: it's work of art: delete; it's not work of art: keep. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot simply apply US law and you cannot assume that the picture is OK on commons merely because it may or may not be PD in the US according to some questionable laws. As a minimum standard, the photo must be in the PD now (not some years ago) both in the US and in the country of origin--rtc (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- ...and it is. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot simply apply US law and you cannot assume that the picture is OK on commons merely because it may or may not be PD in the US according to some questionable laws. As a minimum standard, the photo must be in the PD now (not some years ago) both in the US and in the country of origin--rtc (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- About PD-Italy I don't know the reasons for deleting and for "re-borning", so I don't discuss about it. About the picture there is also pd-1996 (was first published before 1978 outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) without complying with U.S. copyright formalities and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). And it was). So my opinion is: it's work of art: delete; it's not work of art: keep. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Photos need not be artistic anymore for copyrightability all over Europe since the EU law has come into effect (yes: I say law, against all anti-EU ressentiment which claims "oh its not a true law but can be ignored if local law that implements it can be interpreted in conflict with it"). This photo is not artistic; yet it is copyrighted because of said law. The primitive propaganda used to restore the template is invalid. You are perfectly right: PD-italy should not be discussed here. It should simply be deleted. Without further discussion. The deletion request decision remains entirely valid. --rtc (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that Ahuthor: Fosco Maraini is a mistake. Maraini is the author of the book that contains the picture, but is no the author of the picture. I've the book in my hand now, it's my sorce. Fosco cannot be the author because he never arrived at the "Walk of gods". There are many pictures in the book indicated "by Fosco Maraini" but are all in the valley or in the base camp. And in the book there is no indication of the author of this picture. So the correct attribution is Author: Unknow component of the expedition. He is surely a italian guy, but I can't know who. Rupertsciamenna (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This file is nominated for speedy deletion by User:Mintz0223, and copyvio-tag is removed by User:Jcb. I'm sending this to DR. Nominator's reason is as follows: Term of protection is not ended. The author's death is uncertain, and this artwork was created at 1971. (40 years ago) South Korean law says that artworks are protected 50 years after author's death, or after publication. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is definitely copy from [3]. same pixel sizes and same file size. -- 더위먹은민츠(Mintz) / 토론 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
very low quality png version of an existing svg file Antemister (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
´replaced the flag globaly, please delete this low quality file now Antemister (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no longer in use. A far better version is existing and all usage has been replaced. --High Contrast (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio to me - low res, no metadata, clearly posed. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Identical raster version of the vector File:Aiga_parking_inv.svg. Vector is a more appropriate format for this image, and no pages (other than the SVG and an old GIF redirect) link here. BorgHunter (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per policy, we don't delete a raster file for the presence of a vector file Jcb (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong closure by jcb, as policy states "It is still possible to post a normal deletion request for superseded images (and/or to request deletion of "superseded" images for other reasons)" →AzaToth 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR - you didn't provide such "other reasons" - Jcb (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- it says "and/or", not only "and" →AzaToth 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - useless renomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. It does no good to delete files such as this -- as you surely know, we actually keep everything, so "deletion" actually means "change status so that only Admins can view it", with no saving in storage. Some potential users off-WMF may not understand SVG, so having the PNG might be useful. Certainly that is not very likely, but since it costs nothing, why not keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims given the nature of the content and the uploader's history of copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a reproduction of a picture on a sign (see upload history), and therefore probably unfree NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The image is fine. It's a public picture of the museum and there are no informations that it is under any kind of copyright. Your adjective "probably" does not seem enough of a reason to push for a deletion.--Fezz5555 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: FOP OK in Croatia. Yann (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The licensing of this image is totally bullshit. This person does not own this thing, did not create it, and therefore can not distribute it as share-alike. On top of that I do not think that people can simply upload "photos" of other images, especially those which are not free. LAz17 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous closure, see Commons:FOP#Croatia - Jcb (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
JOCKEY underwear
[edit]
- File:Man in "JOCKEY" underwear 1.jpg
- File:Man in "JOCKEY" underwear 2.jpg
- File:Man in "JOCKEY" underwear 3.jpg
- File:Man in "JOCKEY" underwear 4.jpg
Out of scope Mys 721tx (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: low resolution, poor quality, educational value unclear. Mathonius (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
See the following deletion requests as well: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asdsed.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xyzerg.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fghs.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)- I renamed and combined the DRs. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 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) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Note that men's underwear (like any other article of clothing) can be within project scope, but the more common the object the less need there is for blurry poorly photographed images of it. No compensating factors for poor photo quality. Further, uploader's description (eg "drfef") are useless an insulting to Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ayoubmaroc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely authorship claims given the embedded copyright notices, Google search results, the uploader's history of copyright violations, and the varying styles of the maps.
These contain the copyright notice: © Daniel Dalet / d-maps.com whose terms and conditions are non-free because they limit the number of maps used to 10 per publication. There is nothing to indicate that Ayoubmaroc is Daniel Dalet.
- File:Autoroute a1 maroc.jpg
- File:Autoroute a2 maroc.jpg
- File:Autoroute a3 maroc.jpg
- File:Autoroute a4 maroc.jpg
This one is in a different style from all other maps. There are plenty of matches on Google.
These are in yet another style. Again, plenty of matches on Google.
- File:Railway map 1.jpg
- File:Railway map 2 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map3 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map4 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map5 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map6 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map7 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map8 morocco.jpg
- File:Railway map9 morocco.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Instead of commenting on this discussion, the uploader chose to continue to upload yet another file by Daniel Dalet:
—LX (talk, contribs) 13:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free, per the 10-item restriction. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 26 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)
File was uploaded on enwiki as en:File:DgwbluepiccopyOct10.jpg as own work by another user. MGA73 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The picture 'DgwbluepiccopyOct10.jpg' should be retained and not deleted. I am with the record company which has produced this product and I am the owner of the picture. please retain this picture within the article on 'David G Walker'. Many thanks. G.Frenzy
- @MGA73, could you provide some more details? I'm unable to determine a valid deletion reason from this. Jcb (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no deletion reason provided Jcb (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Found here. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the wayback machine shows it's a crop of a picture they already had in 2009, see here. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
error Promeneuse7 (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
speedy motif Promeneuse7 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by someone -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
per COM:PEOPLE identifiable person in a private location with no evidence of consent to release this image 99of9 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete And again with all those "Ashley", "Amy" and whatsoever pics: They have been deleted from FlickR, maybe because of copyvio, maybe because "Ashley" didn't want to be shown in that way, whatever. With no reasonalbe use for Wiki and those problems -> delete it! --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- keep not deleted from flickr, balatant lie. --Snotty (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of this image which has a watermark. Thanks to Methem for tracking this down. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per discovery. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Well, well, well, as told in the DR before: YOU CANNOT TRUST FlickR. Please bann the uploader. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- User added to bad flickr list. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Good catch, Methem. --Leyo 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
onkor limaj do viktorya 41.103.149.115 13:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unreadable deletion reason Jcb (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Lengliz.medali (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Maxh94 (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Brittany+Hargest+001.png. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Energy Corporation (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Cannot verify license, no description and not useful because of these problems and therefore out of scope. "Self" is very doubtful. Queeg (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion would be unfortunate, this is a historically important image and does not appear elsewhere on the web, at least as far as Google Images can find. See [4] I have sent an email to casaculturaltrudesojka@yahoo.com and info@trude-sojka.com. Can an admin see that the uploader is emailed? Dankarl (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have had one exchange of emails with Trude Sojka's daughter and am trying to find out more about the image.Dankarl (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- With respect to the nominator's statement " 'self' is very doubtful", the template simply states that the uploader is the copyright holder. I see no particular reason to doubt this assertion, particularly given the subject's history. Judging by the irregular margins and tight framing, the photo looks to be a snapshot rather than a studio portrait. Dankarl (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I did not find the categories for this image. This seems to be a really good photograph to keep, having the image template on it with at least an approximation of the date the photograph had been taken might have been helpful. 1 out of 20 or 25 of my nominations really suck. This is one of them. Should I apologize? -- Queeg (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Double copy ==> There is the same Picture available File:Three Lesbians with Salami no watermark.jpg Gegensystem (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm concerned it was undeleted in the light of Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-05, which kept its derivative File:Three Lesbians with Salami no watermark.jpg deleted due to questionable copyright status (apparently this file wasn't directly considered, but it seems to fall under the same issues). On another issue, the watermark removal was particularly sloppy and amatuerish, and I think if we keep the derivative version, we should keep the version with the watermark so someone can make a better pass at removing the watermark.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 19 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) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is not remotely relevant here. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- What on earth does that comment have to do with this image discussion? Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the two former comments -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Significantly different cropping, not same, not a copy. Infrogmation (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's merely cropped to avoid a watermark, and the version with the watermark is still in the history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone wants a crop. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's merely cropped to avoid a watermark, and the version with the watermark is still in the history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, delete this one, and keep File:Three Lesbians with Salami no watermark.jpg if no license problems exist -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Restored at UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
sexually explicit Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Commons is not censored. This is no valid reason to delete. -- RE rillke questions? 13:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Rillke, the fact that it is explicit is no reason to delete. However, I see no educational use for the file and it is not used on any wiki. Seems more like the uploader got a kick out of putting a naked picture of themselves online. MacMed (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are low res, blurred, and the exif is somewhat weird... What is this, cell phone images? I thought they could be stills from a video, but they may be legit after all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. I agree with MacMed. - Taketa (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep because of the deletion rationale Thepoliticalmaster gave. And: please show me a broad set of pictures of the same setting/objects for replacement. --Saibo (Δ) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. No educational use for the file. --Hold and wave (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Again a useless self-made photo with no educational scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Pornographic content is not a reason for deletion. Human sexuality is a valid topic of educational enquiry. I accept this is a truly, truly awful photo, but we really don't have anything similar which is better. If we had a range of images showing anal toy use in high resolution that are in focus I would happily delete this - I'm all for getting rid of bad images when we have suitable replacements - but we don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Bad quality. Same User has uploaded File:Anal3.jpg That photo shows the same action in better quality. Gegensystem (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per my previous closure, and I really would not call File:Anal3.jpg "better" quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain in what manner File:Anal3.jpg is a better image. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As not per nominator. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep unique photo. Not similar to the replacement proposed by the OP. --Saibo (Δ) 01:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - not educational usefull, so out of scope, as has been pointed out by sufficient users in the first DR - nudism is by itself not a reason to delete a file, but also isn't by itself a reason to keep like some seem to think - Jcb (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And here it is: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Anal_2.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host and COM:PORN are what are required here. This is not used on any Wikimedia project, and it most certainly does not have any educational value. The uploader Xuri (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed photographs of himself inserting a sexual toy into himself, which is most definitely a case of COM:PORN. Just because it's freely licensed and there are no other photographs does not mean this image (and its brethren) need to be retained. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am personally requesting that User:mattbuck recuse himself from this debate, and the other debates I started on similar files, as he has closed every single one of them and none of those closures are in any way appropriate, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate. Keep per my previous closure. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate.
- Delete As stated before and the deciding admin: not educational usefull. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - this was undeleted 2 days ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt it should have.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No comment - censorship raid. "You may wish to restate your arguments as to why the Commons should no longer host these exhibitionist photographs." Ryulong. If somebody wants to delete it: have good arguments. --Saibo (Δ) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a censorship raid. This is a low quality photo that has no possible educational use. And I am merely notifying a user who has had opinions on these photos that I have relisted them for deletion, when he originally proposed them. There is nothing wrong about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Low quality doesn't make it useless. The quality is still good enough to use it in educational context. Therefore i can't see any valid reason why this file should be deleted. Keep -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is the educational context exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- As explained to you ad nauseam elsewhere, human sexuality is a valid educational pursuit, including the use of anal toys. I hope I will be able to upload high quality photos of it in the new year... I'm guessing you'll tell me those should be deleted too. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is the educational context exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Low quality doesn't make it useless. The quality is still good enough to use it in educational context. Therefore i can't see any valid reason why this file should be deleted.
- This is not a censorship raid. This is a low quality photo that has no possible educational use. And I am merely notifying a user who has had opinions on these photos that I have relisted them for deletion, when he originally proposed them. There is nothing wrong about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- REQUEST - how about we merge the DRs for this, File:Anal 3.jpg, File:Anal2.jpg and File:Anal3.jpg. They're pretty much the same and the same arguments will emerge for all. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is out of the Commons project scope. There is no realistic educational value in keeping this image. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually read others' statements. I refer you to my previous closure...
- Pornographic content is not a reason for deletion. Human sexuality is a valid topic of educational enquiry. I accept this is a truly, truly awful photo, but we really don't have anything similar which is better. If we had a range of images showing anal toy use in high resolution that are in focus I would happily delete this - I'm all for getting rid of bad images when we have suitable replacements - but we don't.
- -mattbuck (Talk) 07:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of a suitable replacement is not a good enough reason when the photos don't fall within the scope in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- If something may be usable in educational context it is very well in scope. This picture can _definetly_ be used in educational context. You should just stop to play stupid and innocent. It doesn't help the project. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Ottava Rima makes a good point on one of the other debates. There is no proof that this is educational. There is only a hypothesis that it could be educational.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop the trolling. Proof it that this picture (clicked on random) has educational value. Then we might talk. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a photograph of the interior of the European Parliament which is in use on several language projects to depict the European Parliament. Again, it's being used which means it meets the scope of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask if this image is in scope! I asked you to proof that it is educational. That an image is inside an article is not a proof, at least not such a proof that you requested inside your previous comment. So I am waiting for you to proof it. Alternatively you could withdraw your blatant statement, if you think that the Picture of the Parliament has educational value, while not beeing able to proof it. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Feasibly someone wants to know what the inside of the European Parliament looks like because the Wikipedia projects cover the subject of the European Parliament. And all of the photos on the articles on dildos are of the objects not in use. There is no educational value in showing that someone has inserted the object into himself or herself because most of the projects don't teach usage as these photos intend to depict.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is really funny. Now you claim that only images used inside articles would have any value and you speak about "most projects". No proof here and a single project would be enough. I see only rage against "offending content", vague argumentation attempts and but nothing that would speak for a deletion in itself. Have a nice christmas, I'm out of this unnecessary conversation which is below any threshold. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd just like to comment here that we don't even require that one project be able to use it: Wikimedia projects are not the entirety of education, and we have certain practices which may discourage the use of images like these, whereas in the wider world they would be more useful. I've had people use my flickr photos for things where they would simply never be used on Wikimedia projects. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is really funny. Now you claim that only images used inside articles would have any value and you speak about "most projects". No proof here and a single project would be enough. I see only rage against "offending content", vague argumentation attempts and but nothing that would speak for a deletion in itself. Have a nice christmas, I'm out of this unnecessary conversation which is below any threshold. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Feasibly someone wants to know what the inside of the European Parliament looks like because the Wikipedia projects cover the subject of the European Parliament. And all of the photos on the articles on dildos are of the objects not in use. There is no educational value in showing that someone has inserted the object into himself or herself because most of the projects don't teach usage as these photos intend to depict.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask if this image is in scope! I asked you to proof that it is educational. That an image is inside an article is not a proof, at least not such a proof that you requested inside your previous comment. So I am waiting for you to proof it. Alternatively you could withdraw your blatant statement, if you think that the Picture of the Parliament has educational value, while not beeing able to proof it. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a photograph of the interior of the European Parliament which is in use on several language projects to depict the European Parliament. Again, it's being used which means it meets the scope of the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop the trolling. Proof it that this picture (clicked on random) has educational value. Then we might talk. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Ottava Rima makes a good point on one of the other debates. There is no proof that this is educational. There is only a hypothesis that it could be educational.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- If something may be usable in educational context it is very well in scope. This picture can _definetly_ be used in educational context. You should just stop to play stupid and innocent. It doesn't help the project. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of a suitable replacement is not a good enough reason when the photos don't fall within the scope in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you actually read others' statements. I refer you to my previous closure...
- Keep, agree with analysis by Niabot, and Mattbuck, above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal 3.jpg russavia (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Blurry self-made picture, likely plain exhibitionism (COM:PORN), hence out of scope (compare file:Anal 2.jpg) Yikrazuul (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom,
- AND ALSO, A person jamming something into his asshole is not educational.
- No benefit except for people who enjoy jamming things up their own asshole, and presumably, they already know how do do that, so they would not need a picture to educate them on how do do it.
- Very blurry photo.
- People who are really into pictures of people who enjoy jamming things up their assholes should get together and form www.jamming_things_up_asshole_apedia.com--Hold and wave (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Request to closing admin -- I am very disturbed by the comment pattern of this contributor. Many of this contributor's comments are identical to the above "as per nom", as in these examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The deletion discussions are not the venue for votes. Contributors have an obligation to give reason(s) for the deletion, or keep opinions they offer. For this reason I suggest the closing admin discount this contributor's votes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note, on July 27th User:Hold and wave made what I consider improper substantive edits to a comment they left on July 23rd -- without advising readers. I left a message on User talk:Hold and wave explaining to H&W what is wrong with this misleading practice. H&W deleted that comment without replying. As I explained below, since anal sex play can be a safe sex practice, images showing the practice have a serious educational value. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Blurry photo. I will vote for deletion if photos illustrating same subject in proper focus on Commons can be pointed out. Infrogmation (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- @Geo: I am very disturbed by your comment: What should he do? Repeat my arguments word by word? "Per nom" is not unusual here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- User:Yikrazuul and I exchanged multiple comments when he or she left a comment identical to that above in the recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal 3.jpg. Basically I think Hand and wave has an obligation to offer a civil and policy-based explanation for any opinion the do not want the closing administrator to discount. -- Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- @Geo: I am very disturbed by your comment: What should he do? Repeat my arguments word by word? "Per nom" is not unusual here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- In a world where sexually transmitted diseases cause millions of avoidable deaths, and millions of babies and mothers die at birth, or shortly thereafter, due to a lack of sex education, the commons should have a large and broad collection of images of all aspects of human sexuality.
We need, for instances, images of expectant mothers, of all stages of pregnancy. We need them of expectant mothers of all sizes, shapes, ages, health and ethnic group. We need images of the delivery of babies, and afterwards.
We need before and after photos showing the changes from puberty.
And we need photos showing sexual practices. We should have freely distributable images of every act in the Kama Sutra, and every act in Alex Comfort's "Joy of Sex". And of every act covered in serious journals. Sex education intended to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted requires images of sexual practices.
User:Yikrazuul has suggested, in other nominations, that images should be deleted because they suggest the uploader's intent was voyeuristic or exhibitionist. Personally, I think the uploader's intent is of little relevance, when the image is one that helps complete our broad collection of images related to human sexuality. Note this comment is a duplicate of comment from an identical nomination Yikrazuul made.
In answer to Hold and waves assertions that individuals do not need to be told how to use anal sex toys -- actually, from what I have read, there are ways to make anal sex play a safe sex technique, while careless anal sex play can be just as dangerous as coitus without a condom. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -- Under Category:Flowers we have on the order of 30,000 images. While images related to the sexual reproduction of flowering plants are important, I think images related to human sexual reproduction are even more important. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047198){kind=link}
![[6]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047215){kind=link}
![[7]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal_3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047164){kind=link}
![[8]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Puppensex_1.jpg&diff=57047266&oldid=57042483){kind=link}
![[9]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Desnudo_masculino-1.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=57052193){kind=link}
Kept: While blurry, is educationally distinct from other photos in Category:Sexual penetrative use of dildos. – Adrignola talk 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Renomination: Bad quality. Same User has uploaded ==> Anal3.jpg That photo shows the same action in better quality. Gegensystem (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am frankly shocked that someone would renominate an image just 3 days after a previous nomination has been closed. Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I read the infos above. But my renomination is explictely another reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegensystem (talk • contribs)
- OK, don't keep us in suspense. What is this reason?
Please don't tell me that it is based on your misconception that you should nominate in-scope images for deletion because, in your personal opinion, a related image is superior. As I have noted in other discussions you have participated in, we have over 30,000 images of the sexual organs of plants. We don't generally delete in-scope images because some contributor thinks newer images are superior to existing images. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, don't keep us in suspense. What is this reason?
- I read the infos above. But my renomination is explictely another reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegensystem (talk • contribs)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - speedy close since the nomination is for exactly the same reason as the previous one which was kept less than a week ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality image with no educational value. Better images of the same act exist. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- This nomination claims "no educational value". I request nominator address the counter-argument that this image is of educational value in a discussion of safe sex. This nomination claims "Better images of the same act exist" -- but does not actually list any. This nomination concerns me as it is very similar to the penultimate nomination -- of just five weeks ago -- with no apparent attempt made to read the previous discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- speedy keep nothing has changed from other nominations, this is an educational image and some people just nominate any sexual image for deletion. If the image is of low quality, they should be placed in Category:Images of low quality rather than deleted. Beta M (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - there are no other images of males using dildos in the category, and to say "better ones exist" without actually providing any such links. As before, this is an awful awful awful photo but we really have nothing better. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host and COM:PORN are what are required here. This is not used on any Wikimedia project, and it most certainly does not have any educational value. The uploader Xuri (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed photographs of himself inserting a sexual toy into himself, which is most definitely a case of COM:PORN. Just because it's freely licensed and there are no other photographs does not mean this image (and its brethren) need to be retained. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I am personally requesting that User:mattbuck recuse himself from this debate, and the other debates I started on similar files, as he has closed every single one of them and none of those closures are in any way appropriate, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate. Keep per my previous closure. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate.
- Comment -- Is there a reason why this nomination has not addressed the keep arguments expressed in earlier discussions? Geo Swan (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- the nomination states the image "certainly" has no educational value. Alternate techniques of sexual expression are of educational scope in a world with too much sexually transmitted disease and too many unwanted pregnancies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You use that on all of these deletion debates (including the photograph of the man using the zucchini). Why can we not see this as a low quality image that has no educational value? There is nothing concerning STIs and unwanted pregnancies that is being taught by this photo. It is a poor quality photo of a man with a dildo in his anus, who has uploaded 3 similar photographs and then never contributed to the Wikimedia projects again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- It really helps keep the project working smoothly if we all try our best to respect the opinions of other contributors. Sprinkling your comments with "certainly", or "obviously", or other superlatives is not a substitute for advancing coherent arguments. WRT to whether this image is currently being used to educate readers about safe ways to use dildos as a safe sex technique -- are you disputing that this image could be used to illustrate techniques to use -- or avoid? That would put this image, and other similar images, in scope.
That I have used similar arguments in other discussions is no excuse for failing to address those arguments here -- particularly if you, personally, never addressed them before. Geo Swan (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can respect that you have an opinion but I personally don't agree with it. The fact is this image is not used at all. It is not on any Wikimedia project other than the commons. In my opinion, it does not even have a remote use on any of the projects. I am fairly certain that there are plenty of other photographs of people using dildos, men or women, on the commons that serve a better purpose. The series of photos by Xiri do not fill that purpose, as it appears that he has only hosted these here and done nothing else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, if you would actually read my closures, you will see that the reason I closed as keep is because we don't have "plenty of other photographs of people using dildos, men or women, on commons that serve a better purpose". That vegetable one you're trying to get deleted? That is literally our best photo of male anal toy use, and these are our best photos of male butt plug use. As I said when closing, if we had anything better I would gladly delete them, BUT WE DON'T. THAT is why I want to keep these anal* images - not because I think they're good, I don't, I think they're horrible, but THEY ARE THE BEST WE HAVE, AND UNTIL THEY STOP BEING THE BEST WE HAVE, WE NEED TO KEEP THESE. Why is that so hard for you to understand? -mattbuck (Talk) 06:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- User:Ryulong asserts we already have "plenty" of images that could illustrate the use of dildoes as a safe sex technique. I counted one day, about a year ago. We had, at that time, over thirty thousand images showing the sexual organs of flowering plants. I suggested there, and I repeat here, that human sexuality is more important topic than vegetable sexuality. If I recall correctly the only substantive counter-argument was that there were many species of flowering plants, but only one species of human. However, humans show an amazing range in how they express their sexuality -- while individual species of plants stick to just one or two techniques.
I have asked those who use the "we already have plenty" argument to be specific as where they would draw the line between just enough images, and two many images. No one who advances the "we already have plenty" argument seems interested in answering this question. But the impression I have been left with has been that the answer would always be "a lot fewer than we have now". Frankly many of the contributors who routinely voice "delete" in discussions of sexuality related images have satisfied me that they really don't have a good idea of how sparsely and unevenly covered this broad topic is. Many of those who voice "delete" opinions make pretty clear that they find images related to human sexuality personally distasteful, so they won't, haven't, actually taken a close look at the related images, prior to stating we already have "plenty" of images.
The very first discussion I remember weighing in on showed four or five images, snapped in succession, that illustrated stages of an ordinary penis going from flaccid to engorged and erect. The nomination claimed we already had "plenty" of images of penises. I had no real idea how many images we had. So I looked. We had dozens of images -- ie, less than one hundred. It won't surprise some reader that I didn't find any other images showing the stages of erection.
I am not aware of any other topic or group of related topics where anyone would argue for deletion simply based on their being a large number of exising images. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is because there is an inherent difference between flowers and a human male inserting a foreign object into his rectum and it is perhaps that this particular image, made by the subject and uploader, does not quite fit within the standards this project has set forth when it comes to photographs of human sexuality, rather than the "sexuality" of plants or the sexuality of non-human animals. This would not be an issue if this photograph were not of such poor quality, because then I could presume that it has some sort of inherent educational usage. We needn't keep this user's photographs, when all of the other photographs (save the 3 others that are also at DR) he has taken of himself using a dildo on himself have since been removed from the Commons. It is outside of the scope of the project. The Commons should not be a webhost for shoddy home-made pornographic images that are in use nowhere except for when you have personally taken them and put them on another project. And if anything, there is now nothing functionally different between these photos and File:Sodomie.jpg which closed as "keep" several months ago, and that is of a much higher quality than this, as are several photographs of females using dildos for anal insertion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can respect that you have an opinion but I personally don't agree with it. The fact is this image is not used at all. It is not on any Wikimedia project other than the commons. In my opinion, it does not even have a remote use on any of the projects. I am fairly certain that there are plenty of other photographs of people using dildos, men or women, on the commons that serve a better purpose. The series of photos by Xiri do not fill that purpose, as it appears that he has only hosted these here and done nothing else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- It really helps keep the project working smoothly if we all try our best to respect the opinions of other contributors. Sprinkling your comments with "certainly", or "obviously", or other superlatives is not a substitute for advancing coherent arguments. WRT to whether this image is currently being used to educate readers about safe ways to use dildos as a safe sex technique -- are you disputing that this image could be used to illustrate techniques to use -- or avoid? That would put this image, and other similar images, in scope.
- You use that on all of these deletion debates (including the photograph of the man using the zucchini). Why can we not see this as a low quality image that has no educational value? There is nothing concerning STIs and unwanted pregnancies that is being taught by this photo. It is a poor quality photo of a man with a dildo in his anus, who has uploaded 3 similar photographs and then never contributed to the Wikimedia projects again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Some who voice "delete" opinions claim that images uploaded by those with an exhibitionistic intent should always be deleted. Even a stopped clock is correct, twice a day. I don't think an uploader's exhibitionistic intent should cause us to delete images that have a legitimate, in scope, educational value. I won't repeat the arguments I previously made that this image is in scope and of potential educational value. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No comment - censorship raid. "You may wish to restate your arguments as to why the Commons should no longer host these exhibitionist photographs." Ryulong. If somebody wants to delete it: have good arguments. --Saibo (Δ) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a censorship raid. This is a low quality photo that has no possible educational use. And I am merely notifying a user who has had opinions on these photos that I have relisted them for deletion, when he originally proposed them. There is nothing wrong about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- REQUEST - how about we merge the DRs for this, File:Anal 3.jpg, File:Anal 2.jpg and File:Anal3.jpg. They're pretty much the same and the same arguments will emerge for all. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is out of the Commons project scope. There is no realistic educational value in keeping this image. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Would you care to explain your reasoning to the people who have provided reasons why it is within scope? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The keep rationale is entirely unconvincing. There is no educational value in keeping these images. We don't keep out of scope, low quality images, just because it the best we have. None of the other Wikimedia projects will ever use this image. Therefore, it is out of the commons scope, and should be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with sound judgment of Mattbuck and Geo Swan, above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal 3.jpg russavia (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Commons is not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Un-described, not used and unable to verify license. Queeg (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Image is at [10] with a credit watermark.Dankarl (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
![[10]](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.emarrakech.info/photo/654376-797321.jpg%3Fv%3D1186595551&imgrefurl=http://www.emarrakech.info/Fouad-Ali-El-Himma-Ma-demarche-ne-repond-a-aucun-agenda-politique_a12186.html&h=350&w=300&sz=28&tbnid=kzrQ3xLmgSvRKM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=77&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfouad%2Bali%2Bel%2Bhimma%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=fouad+ali+el+himma&docid=VrJSHU75RL8P6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xP6BTr3QHqijsQKIlMXqDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAg&dur=8896){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Un-used, "notable" pt:Paulo_Modesto, but I am unable to verify the license of the image. Queeg (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
65x83 pixels, lacking useful description, unused, impossible to verify license. Queeg (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Could be a copyright violation; work by Thierry Ehrmann and associates Otourly (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euralille
[edit]There is no FOP in France (please see COM:FOP#France), i.e. the buildings are copyrighted.
- File:Aeronef lille.jpg
- File:Centre commercial Euralille 1.JPG
- File:Centre commercial Euralille 2.JPG
- File:ESC Lille.JPG
- File:Euralille - les cinq tours.JPG
- File:Euralille 01.jpg
- File:Euralille.jpg
- File:EURALILLE.Le Centre commercial.JPG
- File:EURALILLE.Tour de Lille et Tour Lille Europe.JPG
- File:Euralille2011 96.jpg
- File:Jielbeaumadier euralille lille 2007.jpg
- File:Lille - Centre Commercial Euralille 03.JPG
- File:Lille - Hôtel Crowne Plaza 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Hôtel Crowne Plaza.JPG
- File:Lille - Lille Grand Palais à Euralille 2.JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (02).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (03).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (04).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (05).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (06).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (07).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (08).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier du Bois habité à Euralille 2 (09).JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier Saint Maurice à Euralille 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier Saint Maurice à Euralille 03.JPG
- File:Lille - Quartier Saint Maurice à Euralille.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 01.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 03.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 04.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 05.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 06.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 07.JPG
- File:Lille - Siège de la Région 08.JPG
- File:Lille - Suite Hôtel & Towers.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour de Lille 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour de Lille.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour du centre commercial 01.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour du centre commercial 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour Lilleurope 01.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour Lilleurope 02.JPG
- File:Lille - Tour Lilleurope 03.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue aérienne 01.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue aérienne 10.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue aérienne 11.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue aérienne 12.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue d' ensemble d' Euralille.JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (01).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (02).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (06).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (07).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (08).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (09).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (12).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (14).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (15).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (16).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (17).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (18).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (19).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (20).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (21).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (22).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (23).JPG
- File:Lille - Vue générale d' Euralille (24).JPG
- File:Lille bd hoover.JPG
- File:Lille conseil regional.JPG
- File:Lille Euralille.JPG
- File:Lille Eurocity.JPG
- File:Lille Europe Tower.JPG
- File:Lille grand palais entree.JPG
- File:Lille hotel casino barriere façade.JPG
- File:Lille hotel casino barriere.JPG
- File:Lille l'aeronef.jpg
- File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 01.JPG
- File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 02.JPG
- File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 03.JPG
- File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine.JPG
- File:Lille Onix.JPG
- File:Lille Tour de Lille.JPG
- File:Lille tours euralille parc matisse.jpg
- File:Lille zenith.JPG
- File:Pano euralille.jpg
- File:Saint-MauricepellevoisinEuralille.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
PierreSelim (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed, no FOP in the Fifth Republic. Anything you'd like to send back to a local project under fair-use, please let me know, and I can ensure you are able to do so. Courcelles (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC) (Actually, tons of these are in use, so I'm going to leave them up for ONE WEEK to allow, mainly frwp, tot ransfer them, should they desire. I will make a post of French Wikipedia's AN. Courcelles (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
- Pas grand chose d'illégal dans cette vue : File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 01.JPG. Ici Lille - Vue aérienne 12.JPG, il s'agit d'une vue aérienne, qui ne montre pas un bâtiment en particulier, et je signale également que les tours Eurocity sont au nombre de cinq, il s'agit donc d'une construction en série. Il y a d'autres exemple à trouver. Vous feriez donc mieux d'y regarder à deux fois avant de vouloir tout supprimer. L'exception sur les bâtiments récents n'étant pas prête de disparaître, les photos sont donc à importer sur la Wikipédia francophone, et c'est certainement pas moi qui vais perdre mon temps à le faire. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 01.JPG would be DM. I thought I looked at all of them, but I might have missed that one. The other would not be, as other than the sky, everything in that photo is copyrighted. You can't take five tings that are copyrighted and produce a free file. Courcelles (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- En revanche, je maintiens que les tours Eurocity étant au nombre de cinq et identiques, il s'agit d'une construction en série, qui ne pose pas de problème au niveau de droit d'auteur. D'autant plus qu'elles ont été construites à des dates différentes. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Je n'ai aucun doute sur le fait que la « construction en série » citée dans l'arrêt CA Riom vise des constructions style lotissement et non ce genre de bâtiment. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- En revanche, je maintiens que les tours Eurocity étant au nombre de cinq et identiques, il s'agit d'une construction en série, qui ne pose pas de problème au niveau de droit d'auteur. D'autant plus qu'elles ont été construites à des dates différentes. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, File:Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine - Parking souterrain 01.JPG would be DM. I thought I looked at all of them, but I might have missed that one. The other would not be, as other than the sky, everything in that photo is copyrighted. You can't take five tings that are copyrighted and produce a free file. Courcelles (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by DreamGuy for "copyright violation - The three-dimensional reconstruction was created in 1992 and presumably is copyrighted by the artist, Richard Neaves, unless he signed his rights over to the museum. Either way, taking a photo of a copyrighted object is a derivative work and the uploader cannot license the image without the copyright owner's permission".. --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Delete due to artist copyright, doubtful he signed it over, better to be safe than sorry in this matter. Missvain (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Given source doesn't hold the copyrights of picture. From source – "All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer." Definitely a case of copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
wrong school 184.1.11.235 18:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - What do you mean by "wrong school"? This is Booker T. Washington in Houston, Texas. That is not a reason for deletion anyway... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- +File:222 197b6 a9e27163 tn.jpg
- +File:Jesus-the-christ-of-the-living-god(color).jpg
- +File:My Jesus.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Another version of File:Secundo Pia Turinske platno 1898.jpg - a recently uploaded, very good quality upload of the shroud of Turin by photographer Secondo Pia. This version is 1) badly edited, unencyclopedic and uneducational 2) its taken from some not named web source (see filename) and uploaded here without any information on where it comes from and who is responsible for the bad editing. Therfore: out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- With the new upload of File:222 197b6 a9e27163 tn.jpg it looks like some sort of spamming and hoaxing. Some children playing around with the image editing, printing and making bad scans, uploading the non-educational result of this playing here, trying to create "miracle" hoax. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats not very nice, to criticize me, I have a disability but I do the best I can. These pictures are legitimate and the world needs to be able to view them and use them freely. I started the file a while back but only recently was able to come back to it. I dont give out my name and use the nickname because its not about me, its about Jesus. If you dont believe in him that is your choice, but you shouldnt take away the choice of the rest of the people who do. It is not a hoax and can be proven. I try to explain it in a video on youtube, but youtube is not used on here so I have respected that and not referred to the youtube video. I can tell you how you can obtain the same results if you wish. Just for the asking. I apologize that I am not very wikipedia experienced. You are right about that, but please offer helpful suggestions for how I can follow the rules better. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyfaceofjesus (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12. Okt. 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Please remove the two oldest versions. I forgot to remove the Vehicle registration plate. Drahreg01 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: deleted two versions as requested Jcb (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not released under a free license 4ing (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- During the uploading process I went «to fast in the turns», as we say. I used the new uploader and chose «not my own work», but unfortunately also the wrong category. The category should be the same as that used in several photos in Category:Karita Bekkemellem. And I'm going to change the category. Sandivas 22:28, 19 September 2217 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of permission Jcb (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not released under a free license 4ing (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- During the uploading process I went «to fast in the turns», as we say. I used the new uploader and chose «not my own work», but unfortunately also the wrong category. The category should be the same as that used in several photos in Category:Karita Bekkemellem. And I'm going to change the category. Sandivas 22:28, 19 September 2217 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of permission Jcb (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not released under a free license 4ing (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- During the uploading process I went «to fast in the turns», as we say. I used the new uploader and chose «not my own work», but unfortunately also the wrong category. The category should be the same as that used in several photos in Category:Karita Bekkemellem. And I'm going to change the category. Sandivas 22:28, 19 September 2217 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of permission Jcb (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Worky be the painter Henrique Medina (18 de Agosto de 1901, Porto - 30 de Novembro de 1988) are not yet public domain Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- His copyrights may not, but if this was a work for hire, and my understanding was this was an official Senate portrait, then he did not own the copyright to this work. Not to mention, he would have needed to register it, since I would suggest this was made in the US prior to McNary's death in 1944. M.O. Stevens 03:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The artist is not dead long enough. If the US-law has any loopholes in this respect it has to be proved that these are relevant. An artist is definently not an employee. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody said he was an employee, that is not necessary to be a work for hire. Further, that only takes care of one issue I raised. No matter what, the copyright needed to be registered, and checking 1941 through 1949 comes up with no results for Medina. As it was installed in 1944, that would be the publication date. No registration, no copyright at that time, as anything he published while he lived in the US is subject to US copyright law. Thus, this painting is in fact in the public domain. I would reconsider if you provide evidence of an entry in the US copyright registry. M.O. Stevens 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The painter is from Portugal - the image is not free in Europe. Anyway, I dont think that he has published it, he just made it. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep That doesn't matter since it was published in the United States firstly and as I understand no copyright was registered back then, so therefore the image is in the public domain (actually see Template:PD-US-no notice). Further, if the painter was paid for this through the Federal Arts Project of the Works Progress Administration he indeed was an employee of the U.S. Government. There are some hints on that (though I found no proof). However keep for the first reason mentioned. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Fehler in der Datei: Schwärzungen statt Beschriftungen Brudersohn (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The statues are copyrighted by Kubicki. COM:FOP in the United States is limited to architectural works. 69.118.24.210 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. The statues weren't actually created by Joel Kubicki, but, they are in copyright. Missvain (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The statues are copyrighted by Kubicki. COM:FOP in the United States is limited to architectural works. 69.118.24.210 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. The statues weren't actually created by Joel Kubicki, but, they are in copyright. Missvain (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The statues are copyrighted by Kubicki. COM:FOP in the United States is limited to architectural works. 69.118.24.210 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. The statues weren't actually created by Joel Kubicki, but, they are in copyright. Missvain (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - technically, less than 50% of the image is the memorial, and very little of it anything that could be copyrighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with Ottava Rima, but I still think we see sufficient to be copyrightable Jcb (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is already an svg of this flag (File:Flag of the Republic of the Rif.svg), no use. ~ Fry1989 eh? 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Doubleaces' uploads
[edit]
These images all seem to be taken from a copyrighted website without permission. Dominic (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not actually a AAAA cell. It is an LR61 cell. Lead holder (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a (recent) copyrighted board game as the primary subject of the photograph. Will be copyrighted to the game's creator/publisher Masem (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"YouTube screen grab" is not a valid source. It's likely copyrighted. Dominic (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted. I have permission to use it from the maker of the video. - Utilizer
Deleted: no evidence of permission Jcb (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not used, not enough information to be useful, etc. Queeg (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused, single upload, not enough information to use or to verify license. Queeg (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- see [http://www.vegamediapress.es/noticias/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=90&Itemid=196&limit=15&limitstart=90} Dankarl (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1. The country of origin of this work is not Argentina so the licence doesn't applies. 2. This is not a photograph, the background is a drawing or a painting. Zeroth (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Zoreth: read again: Argentine edition".--Negromacondo (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Read again: 1) The country of origin of this work (the picture) is not Argentina. Te argentinian edition reproduces the original cover of the album of the canadian band "Guess Who"
british band "The Who". And 2) This is not a photograph.--Zeroth (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Zoreth, Are you sure? do you know the original? --Negromacondo (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)- The original is this (at the bottom of the label you can read "RCA Corp. Made in USA. 1975 RCA Records"). Please stop misusing the licence tag {{PD-AR-Photo}}.--Zeroth (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)You have not idea what are you talking about saying "british band The Who" . Check it http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4511/gwrcaargentina.png— Preceding unsigned comment added by Negromacondo (talk • contribs)
- So.. in your opinion the band traveled to Argentina from Canada, had a photo session, and released the album in that country first? Any proof? It's not enough that an argentinian edition of the album existed to apply for PD-AR-Photo, the image had to be registered in argentina and published there first. Please read carefully the licence tag before using it everywhere. Besides all that, the licence only applies to photographs, and the album cover has a paiting in the background.--Zeroth (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The original is this (at the bottom of the label you can read "RCA Corp. Made in USA. 1975 RCA Records"). Please stop misusing the licence tag {{PD-AR-Photo}}.--Zeroth (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)You have not idea what are you talking about saying "british band The Who" . Check it http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4511/gwrcaargentina.png— Preceding unsigned comment added by Negromacondo (talk • contribs)
I have no opinion about anything. Let me explain again: This is a photo of the Guess Who from the album Flavours, argentine edition.This Guess Who album is not a pirated version. The picture was registered in the "Intellectual Property Registration" before being published in that country. The background is only a minimal portion of the painting. http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6145/guesswhoflavours11.jpg --Negromacondo (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Image appears to be from this message board that predates this upload: http://bigredinsider.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=23&id=15695&Itemid=169 Ytoyoda (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per File:LUMirabeauLamarBustOffset.jpg and File:LU_quadtrees.JPG. Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to be from this message board thread that predates the upload: http://bigredinsider.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=23&id=15695&Itemid=169 Ytoyoda (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This one we are going to keep, and get them to do OTRS on, as well as a post on the message board confirming permission. The OTRS team can deal with this one. russavia (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Image was taken from lamar.edu homepage - old screenshot here: http://www.radium3.com/ResizeImage.aspx?img=~/Websites/radium3/PhotoGallery/1376480/LamarUniversity.jpg&w=1440&h=652 Ytoyoda (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. russavia (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
