Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/09/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Source of VHS image not indicated. "common pictures that I superimposed" 99of9 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- The source files are indeed indicated: File:Red X.svg and File:VHS-Kassette 01 KMJ.jpg. Powers (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Sorry, my mistake, thanks Powers. 99of9 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - no description or reason that this is useful 99of9 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)- Keep Category:Indicadores de Carreteras de la Comunidad Valenciana (España) -- Queeg (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Ok, thanks for adding it to a category that makes clear what it is (a highway sign in Valencia)... withdrawing nomination & speedy closing 99of9 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
privacy issues no one should be able to just pllug in to personal conversations 174.253.229.139 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- {Comment} Sensless vandalism. please delete this request. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Bad faith/vandalism nomination. Though I'm not sure what Commons normal policy is on nonadmin closes.. this one seems obvious enough that I doubt anyone will mind me shutting it early. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Because it is X-rated in nature 66.87.124.193 07:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is not censored. This is a BS nomination. Kleuske (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kept Obvious bad faith/vandalism nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
No specific source given. The fact that it has been declassified does not mean it is PD if the image was not taken by a Federal employee in the course of his duties. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the classification data present in the bottom left hand corner corresponds with it being an NRO image. Besides, I doubt if they'd have let anyone bring a camera into the cleanrooms where these spacecraft were being prepared for anything other than official purposes. --GW… 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Without the source, we cannot tell whether it is a government image or one made by the satellite's manufacturer, who was certainly allowed into the room where it was built. All you have to do is tell us where you got it....
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Added source; all the Hexagon files are at http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/HEXAGON.html. But it doesn't say if they are US-Gov or contractors' photos. NVO (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:HEXAGON_Film_being_despooled.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No specific source given. The fact that it has been declassified does not mean it is PD if the image was not taken by a Federal employee in the course of his duties. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the classification data present corresponds with it being an NRO image. Besides, I doubt if they'd have let anyone bring a camera into the clean rooms where these spacecraft were being prepared for anything other than official purposes. --GW… 11:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Without the source, we cannot tell whether it is a government image or one made by the satellite's manufacturer, who was certainly allowed into the room where it was built. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Added source; all the Hexagon files are at http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/HEXAGON.html. But it doesn't say if they are US-Gov or contractors' photos. NVO (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The "Good Research Blue Ribbon" for today goes to NVO. It says on that site:
- "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the National Reconnaissance Office Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the National Reconnaissance Office’s permission. We request only that the National Reconnaissance Office be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or the National Reconnaissance Office, as appropriate."
- Since there is no copyright notice on the images, they are PD and this is closed as withdrawn by nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The "Good Research Blue Ribbon" for today goes to NVO. It says on that site:
- Added source; all the Hexagon files are at http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/HEXAGON.html. But it doesn't say if they are US-Gov or contractors' photos. NVO (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Without the source, we cannot tell whether it is a government image or one made by the satellite's manufacturer, who was certainly allowed into the room where it was built. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Newspaper screen shot, not the work of the uploader. Missvain (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyrighted. Could probably have been speedied as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Leyo 07:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, non-educational content, only upload by user. Missvain (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is not the Flickr user's own work, most likely Flickr washing Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Two TinEye results, as well. Missvain (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I am the the uploader. Now I understand I shouldn't had trusted this flicker user.--Monfie (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deledted by someone -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
mistake Tanzeelahad (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User request -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep Being "orphaned" is not a reason to delete anything from Commons. I fail to understand why this falls outside of COM:SCOPE and the nomination makes no explanation; being a "promotional image" is quite clearly not a reason to delete an image from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)- Comment Commons Deletion policy: Self promotion. No educational usage, either. Missvain (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - No OTRS to prove that the image was released properly. It is on their website page, so that means that it is a real image not originating here. When in doubt, delete. I would recommend any admin who closes this as keep to ensure that there is OTRS verification for these images. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note, that is a completely different basis for deletion to the nomination. My keep above only relates to the given nomination not the other points that OR raises. --Fæ (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion it is aderivative. The main objective of this image is faitful (enough) reproduction of a cover graphic, therefore free license cannot be applied. ~ Masur (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly DW Herr Kriss (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality and not in use; out of scope. Dominic (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - we don't have any other photos of stripy briefs. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I highly doubt people are going to Commons for shopping decisions on what types of briefs to buy ;-) Especially when you can get "shop" better quality shots here: Striped briefs galore!!. Missvain (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- But they're not free are they.... -mattbuck (Talk) 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Romaine (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Requested undeletion: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:DSC00401.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 00:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg is the proper pre-existing SVG file of this flag. Once the TNC (or the new formof Government when the Transition is complete) officially changes the national flag of Libya, then Flag of Libya (1951).svg will be renamed to "Flag of Libya", corresponding to that change. Until such a law is passed (and one has not yet), then there is no purpose of pretending the flag is changed, or duplicating an already existing SVG file. Delete. ~ Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- I find it is not a duplicate, the crescent and stars are different, and the colors are different, I just used (2011) because it is this year. Its a keeper. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a duplicate. The crescent and star are identical. The Only thing different is the shade of green and red. They were taken from the CIA World Factbook, which is famous for it's errors when it comes to the proper colours and sometimes even proportions of national flags. It should be deleted, it will never be used. Fry1989 eh? 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fry1989 -- We probably won't wait for such a law to be passed, but rather do the changeover when the situation in Libya seems to be fully solidly established (i.e. all major towns and cities under rebel control and/or Qaddafi arrested, dead, or exiled and/or the government dropping "transitional" from its name, etc.). The United Kingdom has never passed any such law, and technically the Union Jack is officially merely a naval flag, but encyclopedias and flag charts consider it to be the national flag of the U.K. As for the specific image File:Flag_of_Libya_(2011).svg my reaction is an indifferent "meh" -- it doesn't seem like it will do any good or do any harm. AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, until the flag is officially changed by an edict or law or executive order by the NTC, Libya's national flag either is A: still the Ghadaffi green one, or B: currently non-existant. I'm not saying that this flag wont be used on Libya articles from now on, I'm just trying to set out when this flag would most likely be renamed from it's historical context to the current context of "Flag of Libya". In any case, we only need one SVG of this flag. If the specifications change, they can be reflected by uploading a new version. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then according to you, the United Kingdom doesn't have a national flag, only naval flags... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Convention over centuries sets a precedent for the UK. It's not so imple for Libya, and you know that. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who gets to decide which "conventions" are relevant? You unilaterally? AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Covention doesn't just set in over 8 months. It takes time to develop. So loose your pissy attitude and realize that I am trying to be constructive here. Fry1989 eh? 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever, dude -- you need to stop being pointlessly petty-bureaucratic, and realize that whether the new government of Libya is fully solidly-established will be given greater weight in the flag file switchover than whether some by-law is passed following Robert's Rules Of Order and filed in triplicate on goldenrod forms according to proper petty-bureaucratic procedure... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can call me bureaucratic all you want, but you can't deny that accuracy has been a key on Commons, and the official dates of adoption (and abolition for that matter) become particularily relevant when it comes to naming files here. Until a flag is adopted, we can't claim is has been. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Beyond a certain point, insistence on purely formalistic "ticket-punching" -- when most people care a lot more about the actual substantive reality than whether or not certain hoops were jumped through -- begins to seem a lot more like petty-bureaucratic niggling than a true concern for accuracy. Many of the Wikipedias now give greater prominence to the red-black-green flag, and I don't see why we have to be the only ones to ignore actually-occurring events in favor of technicalities. Anyway, I made a proposal at File_talk:Flag_of_Libya.svg#Proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can call me bureaucratic all you want, but you can't deny that accuracy has been a key on Commons, and the official dates of adoption (and abolition for that matter) become particularily relevant when it comes to naming files here. Until a flag is adopted, we can't claim is has been. Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever, dude -- you need to stop being pointlessly petty-bureaucratic, and realize that whether the new government of Libya is fully solidly-established will be given greater weight in the flag file switchover than whether some by-law is passed following Robert's Rules Of Order and filed in triplicate on goldenrod forms according to proper petty-bureaucratic procedure... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Covention doesn't just set in over 8 months. It takes time to develop. So loose your pissy attitude and realize that I am trying to be constructive here. Fry1989 eh? 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who gets to decide which "conventions" are relevant? You unilaterally? AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Convention over centuries sets a precedent for the UK. It's not so imple for Libya, and you know that. Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then according to you, the United Kingdom doesn't have a national flag, only naval flags... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, until the flag is officially changed by an edict or law or executive order by the NTC, Libya's national flag either is A: still the Ghadaffi green one, or B: currently non-existant. I'm not saying that this flag wont be used on Libya articles from now on, I'm just trying to set out when this flag would most likely be renamed from it's historical context to the current context of "Flag of Libya". In any case, we only need one SVG of this flag. If the specifications change, they can be reflected by uploading a new version. Fry1989 eh? 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
These Two Flags Reflect two Different proposals of government if 1951 Con. is used so wil the 1951 flag and vice versa. --Rancalred (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- No they don't. The specifications of the flag have nothing to do with the system of government. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, be it in a discussion - no need to delete Jcb (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
JCB kept this file because it was in use on a discussion. However, if he had payed attention,, he would have noticed that this file was used on that discussion at a time when it and File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg were distinct from eachother. However, before my first nomination, this file had already been altered to make it identical to the 1951 file. We do not need this uneccesary duplication of the same flag. There are now 3 of them, and they're all 100% identical. I have discussed this with Admin:Zscout370, and he agrees that this one should be deleted.
We now have File:Flag of Libya.svg. File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg, and File:Flag of Libya (2011).svg. This duplication is rediculous, One, or preferably two, should go. We don't need 3 identical files of the same flag. ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a duplicate file. If we put this file in the 1951 file, than we can delete it. This file is based on the construction sheet on the FOTW website. The 5 in the crescent means that if the crescent was completed to make a circle, than it would be 30 px. The width of the crescent at largest is 1/6 of the 30 (5px). --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- At one time it was different, but now it is not. All three flags I have listed above have been altered and are currently identical. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose:
First: move the old green flag to another file (with his edit history), called something like Flag of Libya (1977-2011).svg
Second, rename (or merge) the file Flag of Libya (2011).svg as Flag of Libya.svg
That would leave only 2 flags instead of 3.--Shadowxfox (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree on your proposal. The 1951 flag should stay (for the reason of time) and maybe renamed to the time period it was in. The 2011 file could be used if the flag gets changed, (therefore 2011-20??) But it would say on the page that it is a duplicate. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Boys, the old green flag has already been uploaded separately as File:Flag of Libya (1977).svg, and it will be renamed to (1977-2011) in good time. File:Flag of Libya.svg is the proper file name already, and has been changed to the new flag. Zscout370 worked hard to make sure that there would be no confusion between the renames, so we don't have to worry about that. That leaves us This file File:Flag of Libya (2011).svg, which should be deleted, and File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg which should be merged with File:Flag of Libya.svg. Even if the 1951 file and "Flag of Libya" aren't merged, this file should be deleted, because we do not need 3 identical files. Fry1989 eh? 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep - still in use, even in article space, this unnecessary renomination can be keep-closed withour further attention - Jcb (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It can easily be replaced with File:Flag of Libya.svg through Commons Delinker. Give me one good reason why we need three identical svg files of the exact same flag. You can't, that's why you use "in use" as an argument, even though you're well aware of Commons Delinker. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't shout please. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not shouting, I'm using < big > because you have ignored this problem in this discussion, and I'm trying to get you to addresse it, and emphasis is the only other way I can get your attention. "In use" isn't the answer to everything, like you sometimes treat it. There is absolutely no valid reason to have 3 of the exact same thing. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't shout please. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It can easily be replaced with File:Flag of Libya.svg through Commons Delinker. Give me one good reason why we need three identical svg files of the exact same flag. You can't, that's why you use "in use" as an argument, even though you're well aware of Commons Delinker. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to duplicate file. No need to keep dupes around. Powers (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No link to the image on Flickr. I cannot find it to verify licensing. 72.179.25.95 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment For future reference, images without specific source info can simply be tagged with {{Nsd}} and the uploader notified, without making a deletion listing. Infrogmation (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Not own work; vague source; copyright cannot be assessed without more info Infrogmation (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded by vandal, licensing is questionable Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Angry Colts fan! Missvain (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not (yet) notable band, at un-discernible venue from a one-time uploader. Queeg (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused and undescribed image, perhaps in need of rotation even since 2007-07 by a one-time uploader. Queeg (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Duplicates Template:Created with GIMP Óðinn (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image (see [1]). Dominic (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused, without description, unable to verify license, not useful. Queeg (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, single upload by user, personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) OK. No problem. Greetings.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, single user upload, personal photo out of scope! Missvain (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image Rapsar (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image Rapsar (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal image Rapsar (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, un-described, not used, probably shouldn't be used. Queeg (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Questionable quality, almost undescribed, unused. Queeg (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Questionable quality, almost undescribed, unused. Queeg (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Questionable quality, almost undescribed, unused. Queeg (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Questionable quality, almost undescribed, unused. Queeg (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong assignment of name Holger Casselmann (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong assignment of name correct designation will follow Holger Casselmann (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong assignment of name Holger Casselmann (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Trijnstel (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Trijnstel (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Part of the uploads about the game "Poppit", see here and the deletions by Courcelles today from 18:08 to 18:16 (UTC) Trijnstel (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Undescribed and if left to me to describe, I would describe this as "out of scope" Queeg (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Too small to illustrate the "description" yet large enough to illustrate the filename Queeg (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Scope. Lack of usage. Queeg (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional photo of a non-notable act. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo of a non-notable individual. Out of scope Missvain (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional logo. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphaned image with no educational use. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image, only upload by user. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo for non-notable musical act. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted promotional photo Missvain (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom George Chernilevsky talk 19:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, low resolution, logo. Missvain (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Promo photo of non-notable musical act. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Distorted photo, most likely not the users own work. Missvain (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable distorted George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo from Facebook. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional photo. Out of scope, non-notable figure. Missvain (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo of a minor. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personl art work. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo, orphaned. Missvain (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphaned image. Missvain (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality orphaned personal image. Missvain (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphaned, personal image. Missvain (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned promotional logo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image, orphaned. Missvain (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Blurry self-portrait of a boy's crotch in underwear. No educational purpose and not in use on any project. Dominic (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete High quality enough you can tell this is a child. Missvain (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that blurry, and that the wearer is a child is not really relevant to be quite frank. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity --Hold and wave (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not useful. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
private Phot, viol. of Pers. rights, esp. the child ones Nolispanmo 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope 99of9 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
ummm... seriously? 99of9 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete ART! ;) Missvain (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Queeg (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional photograph for a non-notable musical act. Missvain (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo. Missvain (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. Missvain (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope orphaned personal image. Missvain (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Un-described, not used, not enough information to become useful Queeg (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Un-described, not used, not enough information to become useful Queeg (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Un-described, unused, not enough information to become useful. Queeg (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused, un-described and without information to become useful. Queeg (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused, un-described and without information to become useful Queeg (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic logo Rapsar (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mperumal (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused Scaled down duplicate of Daddymummy.jpg Other scaled down duplicates deleted too. George Chernilevsky talk 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and File:Andyck.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Trijnstel (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - raw text (out of scope), not in use, and its purpose is rather unknown. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic person. Commons is not private photoalbum. Rapsar (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal image. Missvain (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Lacks metadata, use on one Wiki doesn't seem to make sense (it is used in a gallery for a town not associated with the image). No real problems with the image as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's used only because it has a generic name identical to some previously deleted or renamed picture. It's not really in use. Trycatch (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right. And also I removed the picture from article.--Rapsar (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality image, we have higher quality content related to this subject. Missvain (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - lack of Meta data makes the claim that it was the uploader's image a little questionable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
No description, one-time uploader, no usage. Queeg (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no obvious encyclopaedic use. --S Larctia (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Not enough information, no usage, one time uploader, out of scope Queeg (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of the Basque Country.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Azad Kashmir.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Source says "available for promotional web use only" Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright problem George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm... not even sure what to list as a deletion reason here. I guess I'll just go with out of scope. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned exhibitonist personal photo. We have plenty of higher quality images of this type of content. Commons is not your personal photo album. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unused low quality penis picture. We have plenty of better ones. --Simonxag (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "We have plenty of better ones" is not a COM:OOS rationale. --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Commons:Nudity#Rationale - which is official guideline on commons - clearly includes Missvain's original rationale as a reason for deletion. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, uh, it actually is a deletion rationale per that policy. "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Very poor quality photo. Some better alternatives exist George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable musical act logo. Promotional. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is also not used anywhere. --Leyo 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope unused personal snapshot Kgorman-ucb (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please actually read COM:OOS and COM:D. Especially, say, this section of COM:D, which explicitly addresses this sort of photo. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your careful explanation. I have changed my opinion based on the photograph not being of the musician I thought it was. --Fæ (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please actually read COM:OOS and COM:D. Especially, say, this section of COM:D, which explicitly addresses this sort of photo. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's an out of scope personal photograph orphaned and is not realistically education. Missvain (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted website. Dominic (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted website. Dominic (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Courcelles (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - Registered Trade Mark Owain.davies (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Trycatch (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Text Courcelles (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - Unlikely that Johnson and Johnson will allow their logo and brand to be used freely for any purpose Owain.davies (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Image is marked on source as "AP Photo/Gautam Singh"[2] and thereby unlikely under a free license, despite the claim of the Picasa user. Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete AP photo.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Promotional poster - unlikely self made. Nor is there any information on the source of incorporated images. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also File:Affiche 11.jpg and File:Affiche 09.jpg for the same event. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely copyvios Courcelles (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not copyright holder ELEKHHT 11:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fairly clearly scanned from some book Courcelles (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The architect, Tony Garnier, die in 1948. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this image is a copyvio.
L'architecte, Tony Garnier, est décédé en 1948. Comme il n'existe pas de liberté de panorama en France, cette image constitue une atteinte au droit d'auteur.
Trizek here or on fr:wp 12:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This photo of one of my favorite bands ever, is still within copyright. We'd need permission for this. Missvain (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Courcelles (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This image cannot be kept as I mentioned in the image talkpage dated to August 29, 2011. The original permission--which has now disappeared--was only for use only on wikipedia. Secondly, we have more than 40 other pictures of this mosque. The only difference is that this photo was taken at night...but the resolution/quality is low. Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is listed as all rights reserved at Panoramio and the now vanished permission for Wikipedia is insufficient. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong name Meikel1965 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete, tag it with {{Rename}}. MKFI (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep i aggre, just ask for a better name. Miniwark (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tag for {{rename}}, no reason to delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong filename Meikel1965 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tag for {{rename}}, no reason to delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
wrong filename Meikel1965 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete, tag it with {{Rename}}. MKFI (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Tag for {{rename}}, no reason to delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
See File:Farsi 1 vector.svg, there should only be one. ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, they're slightly different. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I'll take that last comment as "nomination withdrawn" and shut this down Courcelles (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While the Flickr account this was taken from released it under CC-BY, it is actually a derivative of this "All Rights Reserved" source image. Dominic (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Out of scope, anyway. Missvain (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I suspect this is a case of a Flickr user changing their copyright settings, as I'd be very surprised if CogDog would have made a derivative from a restricted image. More to the point, might be that we don't have release from any of the subjects in this image (and perhaps the reason why the image's copyright was reversed). In any case, I have left CogDog a message on the Flickr page comments box, and expect to hear back within a few days. If not, then deletion it is. Please others, keep an eye on CogDog's flickr page for responses. leighblackall (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- A reply from Alan Levine: "Sorry Leigh, I cannot find any info to prove a previous CC status. I always used CC search tools, but when I save the info for attribution, its just the URL and the creator name.". Does Wikimedia Commons have any means with which to investigate the copyright status of the image? I have no reason to doubt Alan's diligence, and do think this is a case of the Flickr user changing the copyright status of the image. Flickr allowing people to change the copyright status could be a big problem for a massive amount of work copied to Commons right? leighblackall (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- {{Flickrreview}} is the mechanism, only in this case, I don't think we can assume that the reviewer carefully read the caption and then checked the copyright status of the source image. I'm not quite sure what to do in this case. I so note that some of Alan Levine's other images are also credited to "All Rights Reserved" source images, and that he uses "CC status" in such a way to suggest that he may have been using a NC or ND image, in any case. Of course, that is all circumstantial. Dominic (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I contacted the Flickr user Farhang and he confirmed that the image was under cc license before. --Neozoon (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: user confirmed that file was under cc license before Neozoon (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Copied from [3] (note dates). Dominic (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image copied from the source website. Dominic (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional material Missvain (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
License says it's free but the artwork is copyrighted by user on it? Missvain (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright in the watermark Mbdortmund (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Logo for a sports club. Not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Elder Stain (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All uploads out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Joseph Schumpeter.jpg. Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Joseph Schumpeter is not a work of mine, but Farinet_Michel, yes. I used some softwares to publish it. Thank you and best regards. Bastien Sens-Méyé (d) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: missing source/permission Denniss (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No evidence uploader owns copyright to the image. The source of the image is a report by a high school student, and there is no copyright information regarding the photo. The photo is likely from a year book or an author blurb on a book dust jacket. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
{vd} as nom. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)- Don't create fake support by voting your own DR. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Original source, [4] is clearly invalid and does not own the image. May be PD through other means, but we need evidence of that, and there's nothing whatsoever to support the CC-BY-SA licence given. Courcelles (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Single user upload. out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is kind of a funny upload, at least it made me laugh a little. Global contributions credit this user with one edit, to en.wikipedia on the article "When to make a minor edit" and the user replaced the list item "Spelling corrections" with his user name. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Minor_edit&diff=prev&oldid=328183313 and then proceeded to upload this image. Had this image been categorized (there is a category for images like this, btw) this vandalism would have been an almost perfect procedure. But it should go -- not because it is an orphan or out of scope, though; it should be deleted because it is an un-perfect vandalism. -- Queeg (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Very small, orphaned image. No educational use due to size. Out of scope Missvain (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Too small but in scope as long as there are en:Peter Birkhäuser and de:Peter Birkhäuser. Delete - painter died in 1976. NVO (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted as per NVO. --P199 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Low res advertisement from the 1950s. Missvain (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal art? Small, orphaned...out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Small promotional photograph. probably in copyright. Missvain (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Most likely copyrighted album or art work. Missvain (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I, the uploader of this image, hold the worldwide copyrights for this image and wish it to remain on Wikipedia.
- Please use the COM:OTRS procedure so that we have your full name and an acceptable license release. If this is not done in the next week, the file will be deleted. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Most likely a copyvio, image not taken by user. 4 tineye results, as well. Missvain (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete: This is a screenshot from a DVD. Copyright violation, almost certainly. 72.20.188.123 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Also File:Tour Eiffel le soir.jpg
Lightenings of the Eiffel towerare under copyright.
L'illumination de la tour Eiffel est soumise au droit d'auteur. Trizek here or on fr:wp 07:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: these pictures show just ordinary electric light, nothing copyrightable Jcb (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Also :
- File:Édicule Guimard de la station Raspail.jpg
- File:Édicule Guimard metro Denfert-Rochereau.jpg
- File:Édicule Guimard metro Mouton-Duvernet, Av. du Général Leclerc.jpg
- File:Édicule Guimard metro Mouton-Duvernet, Avenue du Géneral Leclerc.jpg
- File:Édicule Guimard metro Mouton-Duvernet.jpg
The architect, Hector Guimard, die in 1942. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this image is a copyvio.
L'architecte, Hector Guimard, est décédé en 1942. Comme il n'existe pas de liberté de panorama en France, cette image constitue une atteinte au droit d'auteur.
Trizek here or on fr:wp 07:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete C'est malheureux mais c'est comme ça. Otourly (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete à restaurer le 1er janvier 2013. No FOP France (again, stupid law), to be restaured on January 1st, 2013. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: this is simple street furniture, FOP is no issue - deleted the last one, because of the map Jcb (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Lightenings of the Eiffel tower are under copyright.
L'illumination de la tour Eiffel est protégée par le droit d'auteur. Trizek here or on fr:wp 07:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are kidding, aren't you? See also de minimis. --ELEKHHT 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light, not copyrightable Jcb (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality pic now superceded by improved version 1_Convent_of_Mercy1.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - Organisational logo. Fair use at WP, but not commons Owain.davies (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
EXIF states: Author: Jeroen Horsthuis \ Fotobureau Hoge Noorden. This is not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This should be created in text as needed, not as an image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no Freedom of Panorama for works of art in Belgium (Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium) -- Deadstar (msg) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The Belgian FOP only covers "plastic, graphic and architectural works". Litterature is not covered. BrightRaven (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a wall of a building, so this falls to me under architecture. Also it is not just a text, but a poem that is placed on a wall, that is not a normal form of literature, and I think that is graphic art as well. Romaine (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a DW of a literary artwork (even if it includes some graphic elements), so it it not covered by Belgian FOP. BrightRaven (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this file may not be in the public domain. The text is a trivial addition, and the WMF logo is © & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's a problem. "WMF logo is © & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." are allowed on Commons. The work does not claim to be using the logo as self-made, it claims that the author uploaded the logo and made the print screen in the context. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete "the WMF logo is © & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." should be enough for a speedy as copyvio. This is the same situation as the Wikipedia logo. It is not released under a license compatible with the project. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as Mendaliv and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. It's also not necessary to use an image to represent text; the in-article example illustrates the concept well enough. X153 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: we allow files with the logo, see Category:Copyright by Wikimedia Jcb (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermarked http://www.beeldbankwo2.nl which states that free use is permitted for personal use only. http://www.beeldbankwo2.nl/rechten_nl.jsp. Image available here. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that the sculpture in this image is still under copyright, the image might be a copyviolating derivative, as freedom-of-panorama exception in Norway is only valid for buildings. Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk)
- Delete the sculpture is under copyright, it is by Gustav Vigeland (1869-1943). --176.11.170.226 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted after expiration of copyright term. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
We have better version of this file. Rapsar (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That league has not a logo like this Rapsar (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Division 4 of Turkey did not use a logo like that. Wrong information. Rapsar (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Not in use. Takabeg (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Was deleted by Fastily. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Missing license Rapsar (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: it does have exif, but exif shows different author name Jcb (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Cristian carvajal.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems rather unlikely that the photos are actually the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Who is painter? What is dates of his/her life? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Pavoldemitra149011.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free media Rapsar (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Nesaya (talk · contribs). Commons:Derivative work from modern art. No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this file, reason could be generally applied to everything Jcb (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative image. Mural is a copyrighted work, and its reproduction here does not qualify as de minimis. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy. Missvain (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Derivative works. This is a photo of a creative work (sculpture) therefore derivative. The sculpture, created after 2000, is under copyright. Uploader cannot license the image without the owner's permission -- in this case, either the sculptor or the museum. CactusWriter (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Das Bild ist bei einer öffentlichen Pressekonferenz aufgenommen worden. Die Presse hat die Bilder in der Zeitung veröffentlicht, warum sollte dies nicht bei Commons möglich sein? Dem Urheber war bekannt, das die Skulptur öffentlich präsentiert wird udn war offenbar damit einverstanden, auch damit, dass die Presse diese Fotos veröffentlichen wird.
- Ich habe beim Museum, das die Skulpturen präsentiert hat, wie folge nachgefragt per Mail:
- "Darf ich dieses Foto von mir in Wikipedia einstellen, bekanntermaßen liegt dann auf dem Foto kein Urheberrecht mehr, es ist gemeinfrei. Den Ursprung des Abgebildeten, also Rekonstruktionsversuch von Moora im Denkmal inst. NI, würde ich auf den Bildbeschreibungen nennen. Also rechtlich ist es wohl so zu sehen, als wenn ich im Museum Ausstellungstücke fotografiere udn die dann veröffentliche. Bestehe Einwände gegen das Einbringen in Wikipedia?
- Darauf wurde mir geantwortet
- "Gerne dürfen Sie das Foto frei verwenden. Der Bildautor sind ja Sie selbst, das Dargestellte bitte ich Sie zu benennen, in dem Sie z.B. den Ort und Anlass Ihrer Aufnahme benennen. "
- Die Erlaubnis des Museums liegt also vor. --AxelHH (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Translation of AxelHH's entry:
The picture was taken at a public press conference. The press has published the pictures in the newspaper, why should this not be possible at Commons? The author was known that the sculpture will be presented publicly udn was apparently agrees with the fact that the press will publish these photos.I checked with the museum, which has presented the sculptures, such as follow via email: "Can I set this picture of me in Wikipedia, is known then lies on the photo no copyright more, it is public domain. The origin of the person portrayed, inst thus attempted reconstruction of Moora in the Monument Institut of Lower Saxony, I would call on the image descriptions. So is legally good to see it as if I photograph in the museum exhibits the udn then publish. there are objections to the introduction in Wikipedia? Then I was told:"You are welcome to use the photo-free. The photographer yes, you are yourself, what it represents, I ask you to name, for example, where you name the place and occasion of your recording." The permission of the museum there is also.
- Just wanted to translate what AxelHH wrote because some users may not speak German. --Gourami Watcher (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW.
- Hallo Axel, das bloße Veröffentlichen in der Presse ist etwas weit anderes, als eine Veröffentlichung hier. Alle Bilder hier dürfen z.B. auch durch beliebige Personen kommerziell verwendet werden. Siehe Commons:Lizenzen (Einleitung). Insofern brauchst du, wenn dein Foto nicht wegen Commons:Bearbeitungen gelöscht werden soll, eine Genehmigung des Künstlers. Panoramafreiheit trifft hier nicht zu. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dann bitte mir etwas Bearbeitungszeit zugestehen, damit ich bei den Künstlern nachfragen kann. Wahrscheinlich gibt es keine Bedenken, da die Bilder auch durch die Presse gingen. --AxelHH (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, danke! Man könnte natürlich noch überlegen, ob die fotografierten Köpfe hier vielleicht keine Skulpturen von Künstlern sind, sondern eher Handwerk ohne Kreativität sind. Um zu überlegen, ob das so sein könnte, müsste ich mehr über das Rekonstruktionsverfahren und die Ziele wissen bzw. Nachlesen.
- Daran dachte ich erst nicht, weil du auch von "Skulpturen" schreibst. Eine Genehmigung wäre aber bei weitem die sicherste Variante. Ein vorbereiteter Text steht hier: Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverst.C3.A4ndniserkl.C3.A4rung_.28Rechte-Inhaber.29 - a), b) und c) trifft aber nicht zu, sondern du müsstest statt jenen drei Punkten etwas wie "Urheber der Kopfskulpturen bin" einfügen.
- Wait - Axel tries to get a permission from the artists. --Saibo (Δ) 22:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Haben den letzten Eintrag hier erst heute gelesen. Werden in den nächsten 1,2 Tagen die Urheber anfragen zur Genehmigung. --AxelHH (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut teilte mir heute per E-Mail mit, dass die Gesichtsrekonstruktionen nicht künstlerischer Urheberschaft sind sondern das es sich um wissenschaftliche Präparate handelt. Auch gemäß dem Selbstverständnis der forensichen und gerichtmedizinischen Spezialisten, die diese Rekonstruktionen angefertigt haben, handelt es sich nicht um Kunstwerke.
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut stimmt in der E-Mail von heute der Abbildung meiner 3 Fotos mit den Gesichtsrekonstruktionen unter den Regeln Wikipedias wie folgt uneingeschränkt zu:
- Ich erkläre in Bezug auf die Bilder, dass ich
- a) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts der Kopfskulpturen bin
- Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).
Bitte um Löschantragserledigung zu den 3 Bildern von mir dazu. --AxelHH (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Axel, okay, besten Dank! Kannst du die E-Mail des Museums bitte an die auf COM:OTRS/de angegebene E-Mailadresse weiterleiten? Allerdings könnte es auch gut sein, dass diese Rekonstruktionen nicht geschützt sind - in der Tat. Gut, aber mit der E-Mail sollten wir sicher sein. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Habe soeben die Antwort-Mail des Denkmalinstituts vom 10.10.11 an ORTS geschickt, harren wir der Dinge. --AxelHH (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
OTRS permission received, so please keep this picture. --Krd (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission was received. CactusWriter (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Image uploaded by User:N3g4t1v3z3r0
[edit]
- File:What_is_this_secret_power.png
- File:Guy_girlchan.png
- File:Urban Shadow Stalker2.JPG
- File:Urban Shadow Stalker.jpg
Image that may fallout of scope Mys 721tx (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Zoé cariou
[edit]- File:VonKarrg7.jpg
- File:VonKarrg6.jpg
- File:VonKarrg5.jpg
- File:Bestiaire1.jpg
- File:VonKarrg4.jpg
- File:VonKarrg3.jpg
- File:VonKarrg2.jpg
- File:VonKarrg1.jpg
- File:Bestiaire7.jpg
- File:Bestiaire5.jpg
- File:Bestiaire6.jpg
- File:Bestiaire4.jpg
- File:Bestiaire3.jpg
- File:Bestiaire2.jpg
Orphaned out of scope personal artwork. --Missvain (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete nice hoax. The pictures even have a scanner EXIF. Never seen something like this before. Trycatch (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2/2010 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. Was probably for this deleted page. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Geagea (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphaned, personal image. Missvain (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Deleted. Out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - not by me, see above - Jcb (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality, hardly any EV, and possible copyright violation.
- File:Arthouse Enschede.jpg
- File:Fettpott in Stadtlohn.jpg
- File:Dach der alten Musikschule in Vreden.jpg
- File:Hermann Denkmal in Detmold.jpg
- File:Prager Gänsemarkt.jpg
- File:Schuss aus der Hüfte vom Fürstenzug.jpg
- File:Frauenkirche in Dresden.jpg
- File:Luther Denkmal vor der Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Altes Haus in Weimar.jpg
- File:Altes Haus in Weimar mit Graffiti.jpg
File:Telefonzelle in Weimar.jpgI closed another DR about this file as keep. It is an userpage image and in use = in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
A.Savin 06:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agreed, poor quality, someone's idea of "artistic", out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Bad Quality, Out of scope. --Emha (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete I don't see what these images possibly add to the project. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Very poor quality. So, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: picture of text Kramer Associates (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
text only, unused 99of9 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Afayyaz6843
[edit]
Copyrighted screenshots for a video game. --Missvain (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Output_of_Poppit_Balloon_Matrix_Reproduction.png is another Poppit image. It is a free game, but in copyrighted and no permission. Some images were used at Wikiversity and seemed questionable. Further investigation verifies the problem. There are a lot of Poppit images. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Files in Category:Town hall of Lille
[edit]No FOP in France (COM:FOP#France). Architect of the City Hall is Émile Dubuisson (died in 1947), the building is copyrighted at least until January 2018.
- File:Beffroi de l'Hôtel de vile de Lille.JPG
- File:Beffroi Lille.jpg
- File:Hôtel de Ville et beffroi Lille 2.JPG
- File:Jielbeaumadier mairie de lille 2008.jpg
- File:Lile Mairie 2.jpg
- File:Lille beffroi.JPG
- File:Lille Hotel de ville.jpg
- File:Lille hotel de ville.jpg
- File:Lille lyderic et phinaert.JPG
- File:Lille Mairie 3.jpg
- File:Lille mairie arriere.JPG
- File:Lille place vollant.jpg
- File:PanoMairieLille.jpg
PierreSelim (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Author Max Ingrand died less than 70 years ago, this window was made in 1956. Edelseider (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Germany has FOP Jcb (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you joking?! This picture was made in France, this building is in France!!!! --Edelseider (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- True, though the error was easy to made as the description is only in German and as the image had no categories at all. Anyway, I have tagged it with no-FOP now. Besides, it would be a copyvio also if shot in Germany, as FOP in Germany is not applicable to views from interior. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but the name Strasbourg (in its French spelling!) in the file's title should have rung a bell, especially since this administrator is from the Netherlands i. e. really not far away from that town. --Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- True, though the error was easy to made as the description is only in German and as the image had no categories at all. Anyway, I have tagged it with no-FOP now. Besides, it would be a copyvio also if shot in Germany, as FOP in Germany is not applicable to views from interior. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Because the precedent request was handled by an administrator who thought wrongly that Strasbourg is in Germany. Strasbourg is in France. No FOP in France. Edelseider (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't think is Strasbourg is in Germany, the title wrongly states it's in Münster. Jcb (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - wrong title caused confusion - personal attacks by Edelseider remain his own responsibility - Jcb (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gino il Pio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Rather unlikely authorship claims by a user who has been blocked and warned numerous times for uploading copyright violations. Professional maps and architectural drawings marked as the uploader's "own work."
- File:Divino amore.jpg
- File:Trinità marino.jpg
- File:Rosario marino.jpg
- File:Cava dei selci.jpg
- File:Lanuvio.jpg
- File:Galloro.jpg
- File:Don umberto.jpg
- File:Crocifisso nemi.jpg
- File:Collegiata genzano.jpg
- File:Cima genzano.jpg
- File:Castelletto marino.jpg
- File:Acquasanta.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request The person on this picture was embarassed with his boss -Pierrotvz (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Because the person on this picture have job issue concerning this picture 85.201.34.7 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Nominated by uploader, without identification, there's no chance of using this file, out of scope. Courcelles (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Summary states that the photo was taken "By Rolien Photography", seems inappropriate therefore that it is being released under CC by an anonymous editor. Crusio (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Bild ist als jpg hochgeladen, duplicate -Chrisglub (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of file:Gruhl.jpg. --P199 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused dupe Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a scan, however it is licensed as "self". Also, no description, not used and not enough information to verify license or to be useful. Queeg (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Either personal art work (out of scope) or copyvio. --P199 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic, personal image. Rapsar (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Derivative works. This is a photo of a creative work (sculpture) therefore derivative. The sculpture, created after 2000, is under copyright. Uploader cannot license the image without the owner's permission -- in this case, either the sculptor or the museum. CactusWriter (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Das Bild ist bei einer öffentlichen Pressekonferenz aufgenommen worden. Die Presse hat die Bilder in der Zeitung veröffentlicht, warum sollte dies nicht bei Commons möglich sein? Dem Urheber war bekannt, das die Skulptur öffentlich präsentiert wird udn war offenbar damit einverstanden, auch damit, dass die Presse diese Fotos veröffentlichen wird.
- Ich habe beim Museum, das die Skulpturen präsentiert hat, wie folge nachgefragt per Mail:
- "Darf ich dieses Foto von mir in Wikipedia einstellen, bekanntermaßen liegt dann auf dem Foto kein Urheberrecht mehr, es ist gemeinfrei. Den Ursprung des Abgebildeten, also Rekonstruktionsversuch von Moora im Denkmal inst. NI, würde ich auf den Bildbeschreibungen nennen. Also rechtlich ist es wohl so zu sehen, als wenn ich im Museum Ausstellungstücke fotografiere udn die dann veröffentliche. Bestehe Einwände gegen das Einbringen in Wikipedia?
- Darauf wurde mir geantwortet:
- "Gerne dürfen Sie das Foto frei verwenden. Der Bildautor sind ja Sie selbst, das Dargestellte bitte ich Sie zu benennen, in dem Sie z.B. den Ort und Anlass Ihrer Aufnahme benennen. "
- Die Erlaubnis des Museums liegt also vor. --AxelHH (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Translation of AxelHH's entry
[edit]
The picture was taken at a public press conference. The press has published the pictures in the newspaper, why should this not be possible at Commons? The author was known that the sculpture will be presented publicly udn was apparently agrees with the fact that the press will publish these photos.I checked with the museum, which has presented the sculptures, such as follow via email: "Can I set this picture of me in Wikipedia, is known then lies on the photo no copyright more, it is public domain. The origin of the person portrayed, inst thus attempted reconstruction of Moora in the Monument Institut of Lower Saxony, I would call on the image descriptions. So is legally good to see it as if I photograph in the museum exhibits the udn then publish. there are objections to the introduction in Wikipedia? Then I was told:"You are welcome to use the photo-free. The photographer yes, you are yourself, what it represents, I ask you to name, for example, where you name the place and occasion of your recording." The permission of the museum there is also.
- Just wanted to translate what AxelHH wrote because some users may not speak German. --Gourami Watcher (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW.
- Hallo Axel, das bloße Veröffentlichen in der Presse ist etwas weit anderes, als eine Veröffentlichung hier. Alle Bilder hier dürfen z.B. auch durch beliebige Personen kommerziell verwendet werden. Siehe Commons:Lizenzen (Einleitung). Insofern brauchst du, wenn dein Foto nicht wegen Commons:Bearbeitungen gelöscht werden soll, eine Genehmigung des Künstlers. Panoramafreiheit trifft hier nicht zu. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dann bitte mir etwas Bearbeitungszeit zugestehen, damit ich bei den Künstlern nachfragen kann. Wahrscheinlich gibt es keine Bedenken, da die Bilder auch durch die Presse gingen. --AxelHH (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, danke! Man könnte natürlich noch überlegen, ob die fotografierten Köpfe hier vielleicht keine Skulpturen von Künstlern sind, sondern eher Handwerk ohne Kreativität sind. Um zu überlegen, ob das so sein könnte, müsste ich mehr über das Rekonstruktionsverfahren und die Ziele wissen bzw. Nachlesen.
- Daran dachte ich erst nicht, weil du auch von "Skulpturen" schreibst. Eine Genehmigung wäre aber bei weitem die sicherste Variante. Ein vorbereiteter Text steht hier: Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverst.C3.A4ndniserkl.C3.A4rung_.28Rechte-Inhaber.29 - a), b) und c) trifft aber nicht zu, sondern du müsstest statt jenen drei Punkten etwas wie "Urheber der Kopfskulpturen bin" einfügen.
- Wait - Axel tries to get a permission from the artists. --Saibo (Δ) 22:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut teilte mir heute per E-Mail mit, dass die Gesichtsrekonstruktionen nicht künstlerischer Urheberschaft sind sondern das es sich um wissenschaftliche Präparate handelt. Auch gemäß dem Selbstverständnis der forensichen und gerichtmedizinischen Spezialisten, die diese Rekonstruktionen angefertigt haben, handelt es sich nicht um Kunstwerke.
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut stimmt in der E-Mail von heute der Abbildung meiner 3 Fotos mit den Gesichtsrekonstruktionen unter den Regeln Wikipedias wie folgt uneingeschränkt zu:
- Ich erkläre in Bezug auf die Bilder, dass ich
- a) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts der Kopfskulpturen bin
- Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).
Bitte um Löschantragserledigung zu den 3 Bildern von mir dazu. --AxelHH (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
OTRS permission received, so please keep this picture. --Krd (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission was received. CactusWriter (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Derivative works. This is a photo of a creative work (sculpture) therefore derivative. The sculpture, created after 2000, is under copyright. Uploader cannot license the image without the owner's permission -- in this case, either the sculptor or the museum. CactusWriter (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Das Bild ist bei einer öffentlichen Pressekonferenz aufgenommen worden. Die Presse hat die Bilder in der Zeitung veröffentlicht, warum sollte dies nicht bei Commons möglich sein? Dem Urheber war bekannt, das die Skulptur öffentlich präsentiert wird udn war offenbar damit einverstanden, auch damit, dass die Presse diese Fotos veröffentlichen wird.
- Ich habe beim Museum, das die Skulpturen präsentiert hat, wie folge nachgefragt per Mail:
- "Darf ich dieses Foto von mir in Wikipedia einstellen, bekanntermaßen liegt dann auf dem Foto kein Urheberrecht mehr, es ist gemeinfrei. Den Ursprung des Abgebildeten, also Rekonstruktionsversuch von Moora im Denkmal inst. NI, würde ich auf den Bildbeschreibungen nennen. Also rechtlich ist es wohl so zu sehen, als wenn ich im Museum Ausstellungstücke fotografiere udn die dann veröffentliche. Bestehe Einwände gegen das Einbringen in Wikipedia?
- Darauf wurde mir geantwortet:
- "Gerne dürfen Sie das Foto frei verwenden. Der Bildautor sind ja Sie selbst, das Dargestellte bitte ich Sie zu benennen, in dem Sie z.B. den Ort und Anlass Ihrer Aufnahme benennen. "
- Die Erlaubnis des Museums liegt also vor. --AxelHH (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Translation of AxelHH's entry
[edit]
The picture was taken at a public press conference. The press has published the pictures in the newspaper, why should this not be possible at Commons? The author was known that the sculpture will be presented publicly udn was apparently agrees with the fact that the press will publish these photos.I checked with the museum, which has presented the sculptures, such as follow via email: "Can I set this picture of me in Wikipedia, is known then lies on the photo no copyright more, it is public domain. The origin of the person portrayed, inst thus attempted reconstruction of Moora in the Monument Institut of Lower Saxony, I would call on the image descriptions. So is legally good to see it as if I photograph in the museum exhibits the udn then publish. there are objections to the introduction in Wikipedia? Then I was told:"You are welcome to use the photo-free. The photographer yes, you are yourself, what it represents, I ask you to name, for example, where you name the place and occasion of your recording." The permission of the museum there is also.
- Just wanted to translate what AxelHH wrote because some users may not speak German. --Gourami Watcher (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW.
- Hallo Axel, das bloße Veröffentlichen in der Presse ist etwas weit anderes, als eine Veröffentlichung hier. Alle Bilder hier dürfen z.B. auch durch beliebige Personen kommerziell verwendet werden. Siehe Commons:Lizenzen (Einleitung). Insofern brauchst du, wenn dein Foto nicht wegen Commons:Bearbeitungen gelöscht werden soll, eine Genehmigung des Künstlers. Panoramafreiheit trifft hier nicht zu. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dann bitte mir etwas Bearbeitungszeit zugestehen, damit ich bei den Künstlern nachfragen kann. Wahrscheinlich gibt es keine Bedenken, da die Bilder auch durch die Presse gingen. --AxelHH (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, danke! Man könnte natürlich noch überlegen, ob die fotografierten Köpfe hier vielleicht keine Skulpturen von Künstlern sind, sondern eher Handwerk ohne Kreativität sind. Um zu überlegen, ob das so sein könnte, müsste ich mehr über das Rekonstruktionsverfahren und die Ziele wissen bzw. Nachlesen.
- Daran dachte ich erst nicht, weil du auch von "Skulpturen" schreibst. Eine Genehmigung wäre aber bei weitem die sicherste Variante. Ein vorbereiteter Text steht hier: Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverst.C3.A4ndniserkl.C3.A4rung_.28Rechte-Inhaber.29 - a), b) und c) trifft aber nicht zu, sondern du müsstest statt jenen drei Punkten etwas wie "Urheber der Kopfskulpturen bin" einfügen.
- Wait - Axel tries to get a permission from the artists. --Saibo (Δ) 22:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut teilte mir heute per E-Mail mit, dass die Gesichtsrekonstruktionen nicht künstlerischer Urheberschaft sind sondern das es sich um wissenschaftliche Präparate handelt. Auch gemäß dem Selbstverständnis der forensichen und gerichtmedizinischen Spezialisten, die diese Rekonstruktionen angefertigt haben, handelt es sich nicht um Kunstwerke.
Das Nds. Denkmalinstitut stimmt in der E-Mail von heute der Abbildung meiner 3 Fotos mit den Gesichtsrekonstruktionen unter den Regeln Wikipedias wie folgt uneingeschränkt zu:
- Ich erkläre in Bezug auf die Bilder, dass ich
- a) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts der Kopfskulpturen bin
- Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).
Bitte um Löschantragserledigung zu den 3 Bildern von mir dazu. --AxelHH (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
OTRS permission received, so please keep this picture. --Krd (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS permission was received. CactusWriter (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Derivative works. This is a photo of a creative work (sculpture) therefore derivative. The sculpture was created after 1952 by Dr. Richard Helmer. Uploader cannot license the image without the owner's permission -- in this case, either the sculptor or the museum, Archäologisches Landesmuseum. CactusWriter (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly within scope, however, lack of description and single upload and lack of use make it impossible to determine. Queeg (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and personal pic. --P199 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Part of the uploads about the game "Poppit", see here and the deletions by Courcelles today from 18:08 to 18:16 (UTC) Trijnstel (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Transfer? - Is there any way we can transfer this to en.wikiversity? It doesn't belong on Commons but would belong there. It is just text, which is out of scope. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- How it's out of scope if it's in use? Trycatch (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, so in scope Jcb (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Part of the uploads about the game "Poppit", see here and the deletions by Courcelles today from 18:08 to 18:16 (UTC) Trijnstel (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - As per what I said here I would recommend that the page be deleted here and reuploaded on en.wikiversity. The raw text is out of scope on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok well im new to wikiversity and its other domains. The profess of the class i am taking summed up that wikimedia was the way to go about uploading files pics and media. Jhasslinger (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- I left a note on your user page. Hopefully someone can help transfer the material that is acceptable on Wikiversity over to Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Part of the uploads about the game "Poppit", see here and the deletions by Courcelles today from 18:08 to 18:16 (UTC) Trijnstel (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - As per what I said here I would recommend that the page be deleted here and reuploaded on en.wikiversity. The raw text is out of scope for Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Part of the uploads about the game "Poppit", see here and the deletions by Courcelles today from 18:08 to 18:16 (UTC) Trijnstel (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - As per what I said here I would recommend that the page be deleted here and reuploaded on en.wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this logo copyrighted? 84.62.204.7 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, although maybe boderline Jcb (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Es gibt eine neue, hochauflösende und überarbeitete Version dieser Datei. Auf der Seite "Derching" muss diese nur noch gesichtet werden Jesus00 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Eine ebenfalls inzwischen ungenützte Datei von mir. Es gibt eine aktuellere Version (Wappen_Derching.png) Jesus00 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Nicht mehr benötigt, da eine aktuellere Version in einer Änderung einbezogen wurde, die nur noch gesichtet werden muss Jesus00 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrale André Blondel
[edit]- File:Barrage Donzère-Mondragon Bollène aérien.jpg
- File:Barrage Donzère-Mondragon Bollène vue aérienne.jpg
- File:Central André Blondel 2.jpg
- File:Central André Blondel 3.jpg
- File:Central André Blondel.jpg
- File:Écluse de Bollène.jpg
- Category:Centrale André Blondel (Bollène)
This was build by architect Théodore Sardnal in 1952. Based on the build date this monument is not yet on the public domain. There is no freedom of panorama in France, so this image is a copyvio. --Miniwark (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Central André Blondel 2.jpg per de minimis --ELEKHHT 01:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. File:Central André Blondel 2.jpg kept per de minimis. Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal art work. Orphaned, low quality, non-educational in use, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep Orphaned? - it's categorized, it doesn't happen to be in use at the moment. Low quality? - it's a reasonable bit of illustrative artwork that could be used in banners and the like to suggest the subject matter, it's hardly a doodle. Non-educational? - most of our images are not in themselves educational, they are however used in various ways in educational projects. The availability of artwork adds extra choices to an editor producing a page and artwork on most subjects tends to be in short supply. "Personal artwork" is supposed to be deleted on the same basis as personal photographs (it's of no interest or use to anyone but its creator), the rule is not there to purge artwork from the Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, I don't see possible educational use either Jcb (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Although it's perfectly possible that these people are actually sex workers, there is no evidence in the photo or the linked source that they are. Since the photo was taken in 2005, at least some of them will still be living people today - and at least some of them are identifiable. I guess we could rename the photograph to not include prostitutes in the name - but then it would be an out of scope personal photo with no likely educational use anyway. On any other project, describing particular living people as prostitutes without a RS stating such would not only be instantly removed, but probably suppressed. It's in violation of the Board's BLP resolution and of Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and should thus be deleted. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Who even knows, the male, who is identifiable, could even be the prostitute, or perhaps their dad. Who knows! Missvain (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Hold and wave (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep your nomination appears to only object to the name of the file, this can be fixed by renaming the file. I'll do that now... Renamed to File:People in the street of Reeperbahn.jpg --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Even if we change the name and caption, we're still obligated by the license to link to the source which identifies it as 'Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn', which is still not great - on most projects, linking to a description not published in an RS of a living person that labels them as a sex-worker would not generally be okay. If it was a really good image or in-use or something I guess it would be satisfactory-ish to just both change the caption and directly link to the flickr page instead of using the standard titled link (so that we don't label as prostitutes in our description.) However if we did that this particular image would still deserve to get deleted as a poor quality out of scope snapshot without a conceivable educational use. It's either in-scope but a BLP violation and deletable (if we label them as prostitutes) or out of scope and deletable (if we label them just as people.) Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The in-scope rationale (should you need one) is that we have no other shots of this street. Everything else can be fixed as you point out. --Fæ (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- We have other tons of other photos taken in Reeperbahn, that are of a higher quality and better for any conceivable in-scope purpose. They're not literally of the exact same portion of the street, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that just because we don't have a higher quality photograph that covers the exact same physical location it's in-scope. If we accepted that as a reason for being in-scope, there would be literally nothing out of scope - I could upload a blurry shot of my closet because we don't have any other shots of my closet. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination was on the basis of the word "prostitutes" being an issue which you accept is resolvable without deletion. That other photos may exist (which you have not identified as alternatives) is not actually a reason to delete this one. I have provided a realistic educational reason for this to be on Commons, that's all that is needed here. --Fæ (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Reeperbahn almost entirely consists of higher quality images of the same street. You have not provided a realistic educational reason for this to be on Commons. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, this is the only shot of Hamburger Laden. It is quite common for categories to be established for high streets with every shop being represented in photographs. As an example refer to Category:Lordship Lane SE22. --Fæ (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Finished correcting the information, there is now no mention of Prostitutes on the image page (apart from the deletion nomination) or the title. --Fæ (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Reeperbahn almost entirely consists of higher quality images of the same street. You have not provided a realistic educational reason for this to be on Commons. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination was on the basis of the word "prostitutes" being an issue which you accept is resolvable without deletion. That other photos may exist (which you have not identified as alternatives) is not actually a reason to delete this one. I have provided a realistic educational reason for this to be on Commons, that's all that is needed here. --Fæ (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- We have other tons of other photos taken in Reeperbahn, that are of a higher quality and better for any conceivable in-scope purpose. They're not literally of the exact same portion of the street, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that just because we don't have a higher quality photograph that covers the exact same physical location it's in-scope. If we accepted that as a reason for being in-scope, there would be literally nothing out of scope - I could upload a blurry shot of my closet because we don't have any other shots of my closet. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The in-scope rationale (should you need one) is that we have no other shots of this street. Everything else can be fixed as you point out. --Fæ (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Even if we change the name and caption, we're still obligated by the license to link to the source which identifies it as 'Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn', which is still not great - on most projects, linking to a description not published in an RS of a living person that labels them as a sex-worker would not generally be okay. If it was a really good image or in-use or something I guess it would be satisfactory-ish to just both change the caption and directly link to the flickr page instead of using the standard titled link (so that we don't label as prostitutes in our description.) However if we did that this particular image would still deserve to get deleted as a poor quality out of scope snapshot without a conceivable educational use. It's either in-scope but a BLP violation and deletable (if we label them as prostitutes) or out of scope and deletable (if we label them just as people.) Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Also, please see: Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany. Missvain (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes it clear that there is no issue with this photograph of a high street where the people appear incidental. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see this file has any significance, but don't see any reason to delete -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)- Delete I hate to say per nom, but the nom makes a complete refutation of Fae's points before he made them. Renamed, this photo should be deleted as having zero foreseeable educational use. As it was nominated, it was a severe BLP violation, which the WMF Board has laid down rules against that all projects must follow. Either way, we are left with a delete. Courcelles (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no remaining BLP violation (any admin can suppress the history here) and if you do not accept that a complete set of images for any high street has educational value, why would this not apply to the category supplied above which only exists for this exact same educational purpose? --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
