Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
No information at all Mlpearc powwow 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Two TinEye hits. I think we can move into deleting this and beyond waiting for permission. Missvain (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, no source, no evidence of permission, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Copyright violation. http://k38watersafety.com/forum/showthread.php?t=770 --Sreejith K (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation: http://k38watersafety.com/forum/showthread.php?t=770 High Contrast (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
How old is this scupture? does the reproduction fall under valid FoP? →AzaToth 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the categorization? This is romanesque art, which dates from the 12th century at the latest. Descriptions will be filled in when I have time. David.Monniaux (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: by far old enough (given the now-present infos from the uploader). Agreed by ~azatoth@wikipedia/AzaToth in IRC. Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Same reason as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imagedupurpleraintour.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:PrincelivePurpleRainTour.png. Looks like a screenshot of a television broadcast or a photographs of a television screen rather than the uploader's own work. This also applies to File:Scène du sign o the time tour.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Nan cette photo n'est pas une capture d'écran, c'est moi qui l'est prit en 1987 j'étais à un concert de la tournée. Ne la supprimer pas s'il vous plait — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceMarciano (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Copright violation,screenshot. Martin H. (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Is signed "BORS"; probably by the cartoonist Matt Bors and not the uploader. Handcuffed (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Was available on the web in 2008 ([1]) before being uploaded to Wikibooks in 2009. No clue why this should be in the PD as claimed by original uploader. Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
seems to be copyvio from http://www.sr.edu.sa/en/index.php?option=com_expose&topcoll=1. ELEKHHT 03:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Could be moved to speedy. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mousa Alshaikh (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Painful quality, as well. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: True, photos are from the internet. Tarawneh (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Violation of copyright : Picture taken from another website ( http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/01/11/425318-Stade-Toulousain-Shaun-Sowerby-le-Bok-qui-aime-vivre-avec-les-Coqs.html ). La Depeche is a French newspaper. Léna (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy Jcb (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation Rapsar (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy Jcb (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a screenshot from a film or something. No actual description, very low res, I think it's a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Matt's nom. Missvain (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Smells like a copyvio Courcelles (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
insufficient evidence provided that this is freely licensed, example some text matches from http://osabino1.homestead.com/ReviewsPanteras.html 84user (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: also out of scope Jcb (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
What possible use could we have for your "Indian balls"? ~ Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No much. Lacking in educational use and quality & COM:NUDE. Missvain (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a private photo album.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded by an editor with a history of copyright violations. Highly unlikely to be their own work. Nick-D (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
DW of a advert poster. No statement that FOP applies (and I doubt it for that kind of mobile artwork). Which country is this? Saibo (Δ) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It is a demonstrative file and it doesn't serve anymore Gizetasoft (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
È un file dimostrativo e non serve più Gizetasoft (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
gratuitous nudity, can't think of a use case for the image Eng446w4 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I had noticed that only a drawing depicted this in the subcategory, so I added this (and other related) photos to show real life version. They may certainly be deleted if so chosen. Sorry for any inconvenience. Eng446w4 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: I had changed this request from a speedy delete (as nominated by another user) so I could reply. Thanks. Eng446w4 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination of COM:NUDE, educational quality and lack of use for project(s). Missvain (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Nudity. Marcos talk 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
derivative work of this file (http://www.toptourguide.com/state2_img/Tripura.jpg and http://www.tripuraschooleducation.in/SchoolEdu/SProfile/pix/416px-tripura_map.jpg), but source not mention. Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Because you can't seach it RTVP (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a promotional upload by the user. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
No EXIF data, appears to be a crop. Other uploads by the user have been deleted as copyvios but I haven't been able to find a specific match for this image. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The photo is blurry and there's flash on it. the Windows Logo is copyrighted! I nominated this file for deletion a week ago here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2011-05-29_11-00-54_167.jpg , the file was deleted and the user defying the deletion re-uploaded the exact photo. I think he should even be banned. The file must be deleted quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) \\
- Delete Per nom. Could probably be speedied. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- IT NT HAVE Problem............
NO NO NO . i purching that laptop with an original win7 home primum.and iit mean im owoner of that windows and can take a picture than my laptop with still runiing under that win 7...is it correct admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad Mosapoor (talk • contribs) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Whats that? A greyish square without a sensefull description and unused. IMHO out of scope. JuTa (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with you! Missvain (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Useless, unused (Commons:Project scope) Bulwersator (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope! Missvain (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete too low quality to be usable. MKFI (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, close photo of a politician at some official place... it is clearly a photo taken from somewhere else Cambalachero (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio from http://www.muzharulislam.com/album/others/muzharul_islam_bv_doshi_samsul_wares.jpg by user with long copyvio history on en.wiki ELEKHHT 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic interest ; location unknown : country ? place ? ; no use Tangopaso (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Perhaps the original uploader can identify the location and update the description. While quality isn't always an argument, it is of decent quality - a bit of inquiry might help keep this image. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: B&W image, from 2008 -- unlikely to be updated Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be subject - first off, no proof that subject owns copyright, nor any proof that uploader is in fact the subject. Low res and no metadata, uploaded in a drive-by - I smell a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Professional photo by a drive-by contributor makes me suspicious, especially when the only description provided is "portrait". A much smaller version of #2 is in use at this website which appears to date from mid-2010, a year before the images were uploaded here. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per mattbuck. Missvain (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er, I think it should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Typo :) Missvain (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er, I think it should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comments - It was originally used for this page which was also deleted for similar reasons. The de users believed that the creator of the page was Christoph Wilke, which I believe is the uploader of the image. This has not been confirmed. But the image appears to be uploaded as part of an attempt to promote himself. The website Mattbuck links to states that "Markus Förderer" is the creator of the image. The owner of the copyright is most likely Markus Förderer, the website, or, if Christoph Wilke paid for the image, himself. However, seeing as how Wilke appears to be promoting himself, it would seem that he had permission to upload or could provide OTRS with permission. Without the promotional wiki page the image is useless. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Low res plus professional looking with no metadata makes me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just looks a bit suspicious to me - strange blurring, no camera metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to de.wp by a drive-by contributor whose only edit was to add this image to an article. Clearly a professional photo, I doubt the uploader is the photographer, thus making this a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per mattbuck. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused in personal pages, not encyclopedic matter Ciaurlec (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused in personal pages, not encyclopedic matter Ciaurlec (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted music is used as soundtrack. The video might be OK after removing this. Leyo 11:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- To be more precise: Beethoven's violin concerto is in the public domain of course, but the recording used is not properly stated, and the rights of the performers are most certainly infringed. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Uncredited derivative of File:Chip formation Type I.svg Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is credited now. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem relevant to project if you look at the description also - seems like a joke. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Also not in use, we have plenty of identified players. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Riatas.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Яковлева Надежда Олеговна.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Черньо,Мунтьян и Билюка.jpg. Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Didn't we do a mass delete of this stuff already? Missvain (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
uploaded as a test by Village Pump monitor, but never deleted. Glasshouse (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
uploaded as a test by Village Pump monitor, but never deleted. Glasshouse (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo isn't realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's description contains bad language.Обывало (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope Missvain (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Appears to be taken from a commercial online map service. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Picture from some group, web-hosting picture, not used and not good documented Motopark (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like they have replaced the image before, an that it's from Facebook. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
File almost identical with File:Capon Springs Resort Capon Springs WV 20090719 21.JPG Tangopaso (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Keep this one and delete the other, better framing in this image. Missvain (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo? not in scope Avron (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a couple of old metal heads. Love old scans..but agreeing with nom. Missvain (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
no usable quality Avron (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable poor George Chernilevsky talk 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
promotion material? not used Avron (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I see Bob! But yes, seems rather useless for our project. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
promotion material? not used Avron (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This probably could have been a mass nom....Missvain (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
promotion material? not used Avron (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
unknown, unuesed logo Avron (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
promotion material? not used Avron (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
promotion material, not used Avron (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
barely usable quality Avron (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Terrible quality, I agree. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see that it is particularly bad. Nighttime photos of plazas and lights are not what you would use for detail, but that's not the point. Dankarl (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
personal photo? not used Avron (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
unused internal banner Avron (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- as author: delete User:Tmv23 (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Unclear what this is supposed to be. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
not useful Kingroyos (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? --Slomox (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Signatures may arguably be protected by copyright in the UK; I (the uploader) have just read this. Abanima (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Inferior and useless file. We have a superior SVG at File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Inferior version of File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg. The user has uploaded this twice as well, see here ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is sourced from Getty Images, but incorrectly licensed as copyleft. Gobonobo (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find it in the Ochs archive available online, but, he did photograph her frequently. 95% sure this is going to be within copyrighted by Getty/Ochs. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No proof of license = delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Inferior file, we already have an SVG of the Togolese emblem at File:Coat of arms of Togo.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 20:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio uploader[2] Oleola (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if in an historical building, this sculpture is contemporary art. We don't know the author but he might be alive. Symac (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Very poor quality. Is this useful or is it out of scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--Motopark (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not useful. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Photos uploaded by user Stikula
[edit]- File:Serbian_White_Eagles_bw_70s.jpg
- File:Milutin Šoškić playing days.jpg
- File:Rajko Mitić registracija.jpg
This user already uploaded a copyvio photo scan taken from there[3][4], so it's very unlikely that these photos were made by him--Oleola (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rajko_Mitić.gif){kind=link}
- Delete Appears to all be scans and I do highly doubt that the user did take these images. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
So fuzzy, poor quality. ComputerHotline (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. –Tryphon☂ 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete very poor quality. @Tryphon: Is it such big problem to remove it from the one article? --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, see COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project. The quality is not great, but if fr:wp wants to use it, we can't interfere and decide for them that they can't. –Tryphon☂ 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
it's so fuzzy ComputerHotline (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous discussion. Yes, the image is unfortunately blurry. However some users are finding it of some use and has been and still is in use, thus is within project scope. Repeating the same deletion request after an identical nomination has been closed is not helpful. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's so fuzzy.... ComputerHotline (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. As stated above, image is in use. Inappropriate repeat request for deletion for exact same reason after image has been kept. Infrogmation (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
it's so blurry ComputerHotline (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
'Speedy kept Opening the same DR over and over is disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution and lack of EXIF data obscures whether or not the photo is actually free or just cropped from somewhere else —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and nuke uploader's other contribs - was uploaded with all information fields filled in as "11". I don't think that's legitimate. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- But to be fair, that was fixed by the uploader about 3 minutes after the upload. I haven't looked at the other contribs. --99of9 (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Wich photo may be deleted, all of this ?--Ezarateesteban 22:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: missing EXIF on itself isn't sufficient for deletion Jcb (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have made a mistake with the license. Delete the picture. I shall seek the approval of the author - Mark Wade. Borislavsabev
i doubt the uploader is the author as stated Avron (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Tagging for permission. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Мухарбек Маматиев.jpg. Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by SmoothNelson (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like screenshots of a television broadcast or photographs of a television screen rather than the uploader's own work. Other uploads by the user had filenames indicating that they were snapshots created using VLC.
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by NelsonClassique (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like screenshots of a television broadcast or photographs of a television screen rather than the uploader's own work.
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1917 photo; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. The nominator for deletion has failed to identify the author of the image, or give a source that identifies the author of the image, hence the second requirment is not proved to be unfullfilled. 84.23.155.84 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dear not-logged in user, you've misunderstood the template's text as well as Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
See last DR. See template: "Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template." Second condition not fulfilled. Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per consensus in previous DR - Jcb (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep would you kindly suggest a way how to prove that there is no known author? --Bencmq (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Still no evidence at all. DRs are no vote!
@Bencmq: there is no sure way to proof. But as the template says "Reasonable evidence must be presented..." - at least... If you cannot proof anything here it is not my problem - it is yours. Yes, this license template is unusable in most cases. Not my problem. Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- speedy close - per concensus in previous DRs, unnecessary renomination - Jcb (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. While Saibo is correct that both components of the test need to be explicitly addressed in a DR, it is impossible to prove a negative such as this one. As for "reasonable evidence", one must focus on the word "reasonable" - it is unreasonable to interpret that requirement in a manner that renders this template unusable. The source does not identify an author, and an internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author either. As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable and prudent confirmation of the anonymous status of this image. Saibo, if you continue to be concerned about whether the second test is met, your issue would appear to be with the template generally, and likely all images that use it, rather than with this one image, and perhaps you should raise that concern in a broader forum. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The template is just used wrong - it may be correct in some rare cases where the evidence is much better than just "internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author" ... this is an pre internet age photo! And you know: Google and TE do by far find not all images even if they are on the web. Pardon - what about books? Experts? What is the provenance of the photo? Btw: the template had a DR which was closed without a reason. --Saibo (Δ) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need to be that unsure (without(!) notifying the reuser of this - this is against our mission of a free content repo). If we are not user we simply cannot use a photo. That simple. Read what the template claims, compare with what we really know and compare with our project goal. Btw: there is nothing different with your other proposed template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am hardly one to take the "looks old" approach to the determination of public domain status but here even I feel you are taking an unreasonably strict approach to this. At this point, we are just talking in circles. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)