Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
non free image - computer screen print - image shows a banner across the lower section indicating it is from www.india-forums.com. Therefore cannont be licenced as own work CC-BY- SA - 3.0 Richard Harvey (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
A scan of a old photo form whereever - http://www.loschiflados.com/losdeafuera/belicoso.html → jpg , http://www.gol.com.bo/2010/04/blooming-roberto-paz-limpias-que-dejo.html → jpg I doubt this is own work. Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
obvious copy violation: cover artwork. JD {æ} 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
obvious copy violation: cover artwork. JD {æ} 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This picture is without license and without source of origin. Can you delete this picture? Eduardo P (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I, the author of this picture, I didn't like of this photo. Eduardo P (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Béria Lima msg 00:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I recently found evidences that several photos uploaded by user:Azeri were copyvios uploaded under false self made claim. This photo in full size, but in lower resolution was uploaded on deviantart in 2006 with tag or without tag in 2007 on some Uruguayan website. User Azeri as the date the photo was taken entered 2008 in file summary which is not true and it proves that he is not an original photographer. Oleola (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is entirely baseless research. The fact that this photo is high quality and others are low quality is sufficient proof that I am in fact the original photographer. After all, you cannot adjust a photo from low quality to high quality. Azeri (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: althought the original full-size file could not be found, there is nothing indicating that the authorship claims are true, especially when looking at the uploader’s history of copyright violations Polarlys (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Contains sufficient creative input not to be PD. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Contains sufficient creative input re font selection, layout and artwork to fall outside PD works. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused personal image of non-notable musician. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image which I doubt the uploader took himself. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional image of non-notable band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidenec that the uploader actually created this work for the Pakistan Prison organisation and has any right to freely licence it. Ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It will be difficult to assess the copyright status of the image. Each time I've tried to view the organisation's website to clarify it, I've either been faced with a malware warning or my internet security thingy has removed a trojan sourced from there. If it is impossible to check an image's copyright status, should we err on the side of caution and remove it? ClaretAsh (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been to the website http://www.punjabprisons.gov.pk/ 1and there are clear statements "Copyright © 2010, Punjab Prison Police". Ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that answers that question. Delete it then. ClaretAsh (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been to the website http://www.punjabprisons.gov.pk/ 1and there are clear statements "Copyright © 2010, Punjab Prison Police". Ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused non-free logo as contains sufficient creative input not to be PD. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful license / source.
This image is neither in http://web.archive.org/web/20091208013003/http://cssrc.us/web/12/default.aspx nor in http://web.archive.org/web/20100405132528/http://cssrc.us/web/12/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 although other images seem to have been archived. The image was uploaded at COM at 2010-03-28 (that is just a week before the latter archive date).
Even if the image was on the page: the page contains "copyright by the state of california. all rights reserved" in the footer. Im am not sure if "state of california" is true at all since this seems to be a subpage of a senator. Since this is a subpage of a senator {{PD-CAGov}} won't apply anyway, will it? I am no expert in the US state copyright stuff.
Would it be PD just if the sentator puts a photo by a pro photographer on his page and forgetting to label it with "©Mr. Foobar"? --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It strikes me that these sort of images should attract the same sort of licensing that studio promo shots have, ie they are given away in an attempt to promote the subject of the image. In fact on Dunham's website there's even a page that he invites people to download high resolution versions of his images. Admittedly there is no overt statement of copyright but the general sense is that these images are being given away simply as a means of self-promotion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, those (press) images are clearly usable for promo but that is just not that everybody can use them for any use. Some political parties in German learned and license their promo photos with a CC-by-sa(?) directly on their website. --Saibo (Δ) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There's enough uncertainty here that COM:PRP must apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused image of unidentified person. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused non-free logo Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused poor-quality image of non-notable individual. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Company logo Eeekster (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably PD-text logo, but not in use, probably out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused image of non-notable musical group Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused non-free logo for unidentified product/company Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused non-free logo for something or other. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused image of non-notable individual Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused image of non-notable band, page deleted on en:WP. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused non-free album cover for non-notable band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused, probably non-free album cover for non-notable band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete as album cover Motopark (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused image of non-notable individual. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The Smithsonian is known for protecting their copyrights fiercely; this isn't PD-Art, so we need an actual specific source for this Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was created by Thomas Jefferson in 1820,
- http://americanhistory.si.edu/jeffersonbible/
- making it public domain by default because it was published in the United States BEFORE 1923. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know what the Jefferson Bible is. But this is not PD-Art; this is not a copy of a 2D image. This is a clearly carefully staged picture of a 3D object, a book. If you want to do the work of taking the book pages and digitally laying them flat, I won't object to that, but this is not that. (Let's also be careful there; 1820 was when it was written, the question was when it published. If there were something copyrightable here that wasn't published when they published a copy of the Bible in 1913, and this photo was a publication in 1923-2002, it might still be in copyright.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, Photos for News Media Use Only on http://newsdesk.si.edu/photos/jefferson-bible-treated-open-title-page Captain-tucker (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
DW - FOP doesn't apply as this is not permanent, is it? Looks like a sheet of paper fastened with magnets to some board. Saibo (Δ) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I always thought FOP might be required in case of copyrighted material. What you see is a slip of paper giving some information for visitors. You can't seriously state that there is something copyrighted visible! -- Ies (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Because we deal primarily iin images, sometimes we foget that the first works that got copyright were writings. Of course this text has a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
DW - FOP doesn't apply as this is not permanent, is it? Looks like a easily exchangeable sheet of paper in a glass box for displaying current news/rules. Saibo (Δ) 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I always thought FOP might be required in case of copyrighted material. What you see is a slip of paper giving some information for visitors. You can't seriously state that there is something copyrighted visible! -- Ies (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
DW of the colorful design/artwork in the center. No explanantion why this shouldn't be a DW. Is this artwork PD somehow? Saibo (Δ) 03:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
DW. - no statement why this photo shouldn't be a DW of the depicted photo of the ship. Not DM as that is the central part of the image - that is what the image is about. Saibo (Δ) 03:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Despite the image being released freely, the image is cropped from a video display feed (view the Flickr source image here) and that image is no doubt copyright of the organisation providing the video feed. There is no evidence the Flickr user has the right to release that image freely. Ww2censor (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is a cropped image from a copyrighted video feed. Armbrust (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 12:09, 6 January 2012 by Mys 721tx, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out od scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unsharp, blurry, wiggly: images in such quality are not useable for encyclopedic purposes High Contrast (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, not own work grillo (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - lacks permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom Mys 721tx (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertising and probably copvio Funfood ␌ 17:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mys 721tx (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
chinese description says "prohibited for other occasions", so not free Funfood ␌ 17:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mys 721tx (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
New logo has been added for this company. 74.68.115.219 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment new image is located at File:WME Logojpg.png. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We usually keep historical versions of various things. There is no reason to delete this, espcially since the new logo is a redlink. An update to the description that dated this version would be good. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect map. Talysh people not shown on the map and territories mostly populated by armenians are shown not correct. Wertuose (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- And picture's legend is not correctly explains it. Wertuose (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed all the problems, please take a look at it. --Yerevanci (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As a matter of policy, the reasons given are not good reasons for deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name Hadrian De Hadrian (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} -- a bad name is not a reason for deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This map portrays a misleading picture of entire India as uncontacted peoples because a few islands of Andaman and Nicobar have isolated tribes. However, strangely, those islands are not even shown on this map. The map needs to be more specific because now parts of India shown as uncontacted are probably important hubs of global communication. Noopur28 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Where this map is used, such as on en:Uncontacted peoples, it should be, and is there (as an example), labeled as "states containing uncontacted peoples", and I'll concede the description of the file should probably be edited to display as much as well. This does not mean specific regions where uncontacted peoples live, though I would support another map be created to show these areas per your deletion request. It indicates states where uncontacted peoples are known to live. India, Brazil, and other states, although primarily modernized, are home to uncontacted peoples. That is the purpose of the map, and it serves its purpose well. Mnmazur (talk)- Oppose. That is a problem which exists for many maps, not only here on Commons. It is quite usual to mark the entire country, because it is often difficult to find out the exact location of, in that case, the undiscovered people. We should not delete such maps one can find in many books.--Antemister (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that the map could do with being more specific, but it can suitably be disclaimed (as it is on en.wiki) and the answer is surely to improve the map (with references), rather than delete it. -- OwenBlacker | Discussion 14:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep This map shows the states which contain uncontacted peoples, which is slightly misleading due to the fact that these states claim that territory on some grounds without ever actually laying any claim to it (yes, the contradiction is clear just from this statement). But that's how most states operate. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Widely in use. Note -- please do not use {{Oppose}} in DRs as it is ambigous -- do you oppse the image or oppose its deletion? Use {{Vk}} or {{Vd}} instead. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
According to this provision, this is the screenshot of the movie, and it does not qualify for 20 years after creation. Instead, this movie is still copyrighted because the director died in 1989, and there is no template to indicate the copyright status of films. In 1996, this movie's copyright was restored by the URAA. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution studio shot, unlikely to be own work. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Given the account name of the uploader, it might be the subject of the photo doing the upload. I've sent an email to them to double-check on that count... Tabercil (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from speedy by Michael Metzger for a mysterious "db-f9" (likely meant: Derivative as FOP does not apply, as it's not a permanent exhibit). --Túrelio (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am afraid, that this one has to be deleted, --Wistula (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
File:In_1988_as_the_Armenians_in_Nagorny_Karabakh_began_realisation_of_right_of_the_nation_for_self-determination_inscription_on_the_memorial_Maraga_-_150_immediately_disappeared.jpg
[edit]image from 1978, no "own work", wrong license Polarlys (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ich bin damit nicht einverstanden.
Ich habe Bild von "Rau, Johannes (2007). Der Berg-Karabach-Konflikt zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan. Verlag Dr. Köster. pp. 89. ISBN 978-3-89574-629-1.; Mamedov Y,/ Shukurov K. Real history, facts, documents, Baku 2005, S.35." kopiert. Von wem sollte ich genehmigung bekommen? Ich habe diese Autor zitiert und möchte Bild auch darstellen.--MrArifnajafov (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Despite your claims, you are not the copyright owner and not the author. --Polarlys (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. File:Memorial Maraga - 150 mounted in 1978 on the occasion of 150 anniversary of arrival of Armenians from Persian region Maraga to Karabakh (Azerbaijan)..jpg and File:Memorial Maraga 150 Karabakh (1978 1988) (Azerbaijan).jpg are under the same situation. Takabeg (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong support Es gibt so viele identische Fälle. Trotzdem die sind nicht gelöscht worden. Warum nur diese bilder? Ich finde das Vorgehen nicht nachvollziehbar. --MrArifnajafov (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Who created this photo in 1978? Not you. This photo was created by someone else, you scanned it from a book and released it under your name with a free license. This is a clear and obvious copyright violation. --Polarlys (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Official logo of a student club. No evidence of actual club release of copyright GrapedApe (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hekurudha_e_Shqip%C3%ABris%C3%AB.jpg and wrong permission/license information 198.240.213.23 13:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Official student theater club logo. No evidence of official release. Sourced to unverified flickr account GrapedApe (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Content of this site is protected by copyright: http://galeria.albeu.com/Qytete-Shqiptare/Vlora/2893/ Albinfo (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Castellar-spain-cueva lobera.jpg
- File:Castellar-exvotos.jpg
- File:Castellar-ermita-consolacion.jpg
- File:Castellar-Jaen-vista-general.jpg
- File:Castellar-santuario-iberico.jpg
- File:Castellar-Castillo-1.jpg
- File:Escut-torrefeta-florejac.jpg
- File:Escut-cambrils.jpg
- File:Pont-st-esprit-gravado.jpg
All of this uploader's image are poorly sourced and unlikely to be own work. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
image used only in promotional page deleted from enwiki - I mean, look at this thing, it's actually got price lists. DS (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Below or above COM:TOO? RE rillke questions? 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete this file and File:LogoSterenok.jpg too. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom Mys 721tx (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Google Image Search reveals that this is a fipped version of an image that appears on several websites, including http://www.ghanaexpeditions.com/regions/highlight_detail.asp?id=&rdid=129 and http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/tourism/aboakyer.php and http://www.ghananewsnow.com/2011/04/30/aboakyer-festival-celebration-in-limbo/ . The uploader's assertion of ownership is not credible. Orlady (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: typical low web resolution and no valid EXIF-data High Contrast (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No information about copyright situation of individual pictures. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright situation, probably not own work. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm the sole creator Bensin (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement and probably copvio Funfood ␌ 17:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, probably copvio Funfood ␌ 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright notice on image, no info if uploader holds the rights. Funfood ␌ 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement. Out of scope. dave pape (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The article w:Best pass recovery was nominated for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://flashdeli.com/network-tools/review/Best-Pass-Recovery-17266.phtml, so perhaps the images associated with it are also not Share Alike, as their tag says? Although N.B. w:Talk:Best pass recovery. It Is Me Here t / c 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
File is watermarked "Copyright CCL" - Carnival Cruise Lines. Clearly not "own work". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Way to respond to a user whose only contributions are this upload and a complaint he finds the site hard to use. Here is the license for Carnival Cruise photographs [1]. It does not appear to meet the requirements of Commons:Licensing unfortunately. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's unfortunate that this is a newbie's introduction to Commons, but that's the way the cookie crumbles regretfully. Both a copyvio and an out of scope personal image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
From a facebook site http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=318283161800&set=a.458711741800.229832.318279131800&type=3&theater Funfood ␌ 18:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This is old but it is not 2d object, therefore the copyright might be owned by the photographer or institution Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - My bad. Very very bad
- Aiko (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
3D artwork in US, created in 2010 - no Freedom of panorama exists in US Ronhjones (Talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
PD-shape claim is IMHO dubious, shapes of A and E are interesting artistic work. Crossnominating on the enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: A and E are simply letters from a font. PD-text logo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No proof ({{Flickreview}}) this was ever uploaded under the license stated; user has possibly goofed up at least twice before ([2] [3]) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.ambersienna.com/ Svajcr (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Photographed in the 1930s and unknown author = unlikely PD and the PD-old template is not to be used. A.Savin 20:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2001 patent; not-renewal licensing obviously doesn't apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Carla McL for "copyvio: copyrighted material for fair use only", as it might eventually be o.k. per Commons:FOP#United States. --Túrelio (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree with Túrelio that this series are all close calls, but I think that the various pictured works are all art rather than architecture. If these were on the outside of the building, I might go the other way -- architects often specify exterior surface finishes -- but interior surface finishes are typically specified by interior designers and executed by artisans who own the copyrights.
In any event, I should note for Carla McL that our practice is that FOP issues are never {{Speedy}} -- they always require a full DR because FOP has so many complexities. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Carla McL for "copyvio: copyrighted material for fair use only", as it might eventually be o.k. per Commons:FOP#United States. --Túrelio (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Carla McL for "copyvio: copyrighted material for fair use only", as it might eventually be o.k. per Commons:FOP#United States. --Túrelio (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Carla McL for "copyvio: copyrighted material for fair use only", as it might eventually be o.k. per Commons:FOP#United States. --Túrelio (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused self-publicising logo. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused and poor quality photo of artwork by artist who died 2007; improperly tagged but I think beyond rescue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not used in any article, File:League chart.png used instead Reckless182 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence this is free, more likely that it is a non-free movie poster. Movie is not yet released, so this might not be official either. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused video clip with no explanation of what is depicted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- That clip is an illustration of mecanical dynamisation of preparations used in Biodynamic agriculture. This is an old version of File:Dynamisation mécanique bis.ogv used in the french article. So you can delete this firt version. --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Scan from a russian magazine (?), doubtfully free, sure no own work and it's a TIFF, not a jpg Funfood ␌ 23:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Claims to be a derivative work of linked image, but cannot possibly be. In the absence of clearer description, this should go. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Upload was used to spam the English Wikipedia. Low quality of a non-notable person. Out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused logo Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Formally not o.k. as NC-restricted on Flickr. However, it might be an official US military photo and thereby PD-USGov. But the typical US-military photo data are missing from EXIF data and release note. Túrelio (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
What is "typical US-military photo data " is this data required for all US military photos? Picatinny Arsenal is solely owned and operated by the US government and this photo is from their official photo stream found here: http://www.flickr.com/people/picatinnyarsenal/ -Jason (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- "required" is your wording, not mine. I am looking for evidence, otherwise I would have speedied the image, based on NC/ND-restriction.
- Examples: File:2OCU 1985.jpg, File:2S9.JPEG, File:82d Airborne jeep Urgent Fury 1983.JPEG. Usually you have some official numbers, the name of of the photographer and a description in the EXIF (if present) and a remark "released", at least in newer images. --Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The current version of the photo was found here: http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/news/images/highlights/2011/Maddux_gunrange.jpg. This from the Picatinny Arsenal's official .mil site. Authorship is not mentioned. -Jason (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: From army.mil website, no doubts about PD-USGov Lymantria (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
203.223.39.138 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as no reason was given why this should be deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Wurde ersetzt durch "Permanent_Calendar_gregoria.png" LenderKarl (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep serves useful purpose, File:Permanent_Calendar_gregoria.png does not exist... 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry; see please File:Permanent_Calendar_gregorian.png --LenderKarl (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete is in fact a duplicate. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment It is not an actual duplicate. MD5 and res differ. Both files should be compared carefully before deletion of lowres one. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)- Delete In fact this is not an actual duplicate. I compared the files and there were only made some minor spelling edits --McZusatz (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Als Autor der Bild-Datei möchte ich genannte PNG löschen. LenderCarl ist identisch mit LenderKarl; diese Unterscheidung hatte ich gemacht, um im Datenverkehr zwischen Fremdsprachen und Deutsch besser unterscheiden zu können. As author of the image file I want to delete called PNG. LenderCarl is the same with LenderKarl, I had made this distinction to the data traffic between German and foreign languages distinguish more easily.--LenderCarl (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per request of the uploader and as it is unused at the time of deletion . --AFBorchert (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless the uploader made the kite himself, this infringes the copyright of its creator -- toys are not utilitarian and therefore have copyrights, and we could think of this as a painting of a tiger or a sculpture of one, but either way, it is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Jameslwoodward as derived work. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless the uploader made the kite himself, this infringes the copyright of its creator -- toys are not utilitarian and therefore have copyrights, and we could think of this as a painting of a bird or a sculpture of one, but either way, it is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Jameslwoodward as derived work. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless the uploader made the kite himself, this infringes the copyright of its creator -- toys are not utilitarian and therefore have copyrights, and we could think of this as a painting of a snake or a sculpture of one, but either way, it is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Jameslwoodward as derived work. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded to en.wiki when I had no understanding of copyright law, erroneously transferred to Commons, with no proof of copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- sunk 1916. no problem to keep the file--Gonzosft (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for a pre-1923 publication date? Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Germany}}: It is a photographic work and 50 years have passed since the year of its creation is applied. If need , {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be added. Takabeg (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the photo is PD in the US. Without a source and publication date, we can't determine what the status in the US is - the URAA might not even be relevant in this case. The point remains that we can't keep the photo without a reliable source. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as we cannot keep it without any hints about its source, its author, its first publication etc. This is possibly still copyright protected. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Most charts, other than those made by the USA, are copyrighted. Without source and date, we can't tell whether this infringes or not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This does not infringe on anything; any publisher can put these elements on his maps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as I cannot find anything depicted which meets the minimal threshold of originality. Neither the text, the scales, nor the elements used for the various forms of frontiers (grenzen) are original. The observation that maps are in general copyrighted is surely correct but the the depicted part is not. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo of 2D artwork by Harry Barr, died 1987, copyright expires 2057 Ronhjones (Talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I own the original, took the photo and uploaded it. Is there really a copyright issue? If so, please let me know how I can resolve it Benlevy1 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, have now re-read the notice and think I understand what I need to do Benlevy1 (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have now emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org as requested in the notice Benlevy1 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am leaving this open, rather than closing it deleted, but I unless Benlevy1 is Harry Barr's heir, I do not see how an e-mail from him can solve this problem -- we would need permission from Harry Barr's heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the great grand son of the artist. I received a response to my email today and have just replied again, hopefully this time with the correct text in the email.Benlevy1 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received. James F. (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Credited to NASA, ESA, and Marc W. Buie of the Southwest Research Institute, so in copyright? Works by the Space Telescope Science Institute for NASA and ESA are public domain (see {{PD-Hubble}}, but presumably contributions by Buie are copyright per [4], noted at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#NASA images —innotata 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hubble was built by NASA, not ESA. I assume ESA is credited because members of ESA use the Hubble. Marc's website use to give permission for use of his images. Maybe he has changed his Southwest Research Institute website. I think Marc made the Hubble images based on his prior work contracts with the Space Telescope Science Institute. -- Kheider (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- We need permission for modifications, commercial use, etc; the Hubble websites say works must specifically said to be made by the STScI for NASA and/or the ESA to be free use, as I understand it. —innotata 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per [5], images released after January 1, 2008, will have a distinct copyright statement attached if the author wishes to claim copyright restrictions. The image source only includes a credit line, with no apparent copyright statement provided, so the {{PD-Hubble}} template is what should be used on that image (which I've done). Even the author's own website, which Kheider linked to above, indicates images are freely released so long as credit is provided. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Huntster. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This should normally be solid delete: a person made a complex derivative of PD images; this derivative is not trivial at all and is certainly copyrightable, but. Buie [6] released the image with no limitations, and allowed PD release here [7] (PD being per [8]), and I doubt his employer can claim copyright (who knows how and when did Buie process those PD images, with his office PC or at home, for a project or personal amusement - anyway, the employer would have to request STScI change the credits first, we only copy them). Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it useful in any way? Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Shows public nudity, which is a right many people are fighting for. -Nard 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Innapropriate image, no need for it. I dunno how how this will influence people's rights to walk around naked, btw.--Phoenix-wiki 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not in scope. We have plenty such images; this is a particularly poor one. No point in keeping. Majorly (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Harmless, one of hundreds of thousands of barely useful photographs on Commons. Cary Bass demandez 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Perfect illustration of public nudity and exhibitionism. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Azerbaijan).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slade.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marktown.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept per TwoWings. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unleletion request now on the way Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Naked_in_Subway.jpg
this photo is of poor quality and not of interest to the community/public Norbert Nagel 21:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Do we have other pictures showing streaking in the subway ? No. This file illustrates a form of exhibitionism. The identity of the person is actually respected because of the poor quality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is another private-crap picture grabbed from FlickR, so highly dispensalbe. And I will not start about questionable FlickR-licenses. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sometimes I really wonder how people determine what's in the scope and what's not. Here we have a picture of bad quality (I admit) but illustrating a reality (a form of exhibitionism, streaking in the subway), for which we have no alternative... and it may be considered out of scope! On the other side we have pictures like this one, that is awarded QI, FP and Picture of the day because of its quality... while there's no clear evidence of its encyclopedic value ! (Actually it's used nowhere on the project) I don't really understand how people think... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no educational value so out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Undeletion request is now on the way Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Naked_in_Subway.jpg
Orphaned file of a blurred man running naked through a train car. The file has no educational value and is out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. "Orphaned" means nothing (Commons' purpose is to propose various pictures on various subjects, not to use all of them in the sister projects!). In scope as any streaking picture. This file has been nominated before (under previous name), deleted then restored. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Naked in Subway.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked in Subway.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't used on any educational purpose. The scope of Commons is not to provide an image of every object imaginable doing every imaginable thing. Per Commons:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use, the file needs to have actual reasonable educational value. We don't keep every picture of non-notable people, yet every person is different. If our goal really was to document everything imaginable, then why delete these images? The same goes with fingers, every finger is different in some way. Fingerprints are so different it would require millions to accurately create a sample. Yet I do not see thousands of finger images on commons. There is a near infinite number of possible combinations and differences. That is why we have a project scope. So, how will this image provide any reasonable educational value. Or for that matter, how it at all realistically useful for any of the Wikimedia projects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean. But we don't have many alternative pictures of people streaking in a public place. Espcially not in a train. So I'm sticking with my POV : it's an interesting alternative picture to illustrate a particular human behaviour. And therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is, it isn't used on any educational purpose. The scope of Commons is not to provide an image of every object imaginable doing every imaginable thing. Per Commons:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use, the file needs to have actual reasonable educational value. We don't keep every picture of non-notable people, yet every person is different. If our goal really was to document everything imaginable, then why delete these images? The same goes with fingers, every finger is different in some way. Fingerprints are so different it would require millions to accurately create a sample. Yet I do not see thousands of finger images on commons. There is a near infinite number of possible combinations and differences. That is why we have a project scope. So, how will this image provide any reasonable educational value. Or for that matter, how it at all realistically useful for any of the Wikimedia projects. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think that TwoWings is right. The location of the train—as opposed to the normal streaking venues of stadiums and college dormitories—is significant in this instance. Additionally, the unintentionally blurred face keeps the guy anonymous. This helps to keep the image inline with the theme of streaking and not making the person the focus. Senator2029║talk 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept - was kept at DR once before, once deleted and once undeleted. Seems to have been consensus that it should be kept in the past. I'm closing per TwoWings and the previous requests. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, no real educational value. Achim Raschka (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept - there are three previous DRs of this image - two were closed as keep, the other was deleted and then overturned and undeleted. Nothing has changed, this is a waste of time. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a collection of images with faulty licences, faulty sources (most old pictures are claimed own works) and complete lies. I decided to nominate all images, even though there might be some that could be kept under the pd-old rule. Most images seem to not work under that either, since the photographer is mentioned but not the year of his/her death. I have skipped images that are already nominated for deletion.
- File:Norre Katts Park.jpg - probably photographic work, did "Severin" die before 1944?
- File:Läroverket Halmstad III.jpg - taken after 1944, probably photographic work
- File:Östra Stranden.jpg - probably photographic work, did "Severin" die before 1944?
- File:Slottet och Najaden.jpg - obviously not taken in 1942 (see cars)
- File:Villa på Väster.jpg - looks much more recent than 1942
- File:Östra Förstaden.jpg - probably photographic work, did "Severin" die before 1944?
- File:Rådhuset Halmstad Halland.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1955
- File:Halmstads Slott Halland.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1944
- File:Norre Port Halmstad Halland.jpg - faulty date, but probably stems from the same time as other Severin images, probably also photographic work
- File:Europa och tjuren 1928.jpg - probably photographic work, did "Severin" die before 1944?
- File:Europa och tjuren.jpg - probably photographic work, did "Severin" die before 1944?
- File:Ernest Thiel 1906.jpg - this one might be ok, because of its age
- File:Carin Thiel.JPG - this one might be ok, because of its age
- File:Birger Dahlerus.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1944
- File:Carnap Rudolf.jpg - might be ok, when did Johannes Brentano die?
- File:4 T.jpg - might be ok as not copyrightable
- File:Villa Mariehill.jpg - this one is probably ok if the source is correct
- File:Katarina Engberg Sweden.jpg - taken in 2009!
- File:Arne Hjertsson i MFF 1944.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1944
- File:IFK Norrköping 1944.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1944
- File:8mR Ilderim II.JPG - taken in 1939, but certainly not by uploader, might be ok under the 1944 rule
- File:Singoalla Estlanders Mästerverk.jpg - taken in 1920, but certainly not by uploader, might be ok under the 1944 rule
- File:Sven Hjertsson 1954-05-30.jpg - this might be ok under the 1969 rule, but certainly not taken by uploader
- File:Sven Hjertsson 1951-06-03.jpg - this might be ok under the 1969 rule, but certainly not taken by uploader. Probably more work than last image though.
- File:Billy Wright England.jpg - no source or date
- File:Erik Nilsson Malmö FF.jpg - not a photography, no source
- File:GAIS 1951.jpg - probably photographic work, taken in 1951
grillo (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not identified this Severin, can it be a postcard-photographer? -- Lavallen (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Even if that's true, not all images are from before 1969, and many have unclear sources and faulty licences (such as CC-0 instead of PD-Sweden). /grillo (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, uploader cannot be trusted, and may be pulling our leg with uploads like File:Carnap Rudolf.jpg. Names like Johannes Brentano and Caleb Severin may be invented. I tagged File:Katarina Engberg Sweden.jpg - clearly taken from FOI. There are others that should be Delete, but there are too many different cases in this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a big problem with this DR. Is it possible to divide this DR into a few different kinds of files? -- Lavallen (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The unifying thing is that uploader cannot be trusted - this is PeggyCummins (talk · contribs) and Ruth Roman II (talk · contribs) and Martha Raye (talk · contribs) according to ip-check at svwp. I do not trust any of the sourcing or dating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the point with this DR was that even though some images could be kept if the user could be trusted, the better safe than sorry approach is probably to delete them all... /grillo (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, Delete the lot. For example, even though File:Singoalla Estlanders Mästerverk.jpg probably is from the 1920's, the infobox can not be trusted at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed,
- Yeah, the point with this DR was that even though some images could be kept if the user could be trusted, the better safe than sorry approach is probably to delete them all... /grillo (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The unifying thing is that uploader cannot be trusted - this is PeggyCummins (talk · contribs) and Ruth Roman II (talk · contribs) and Martha Raye (talk · contribs) according to ip-check at svwp. I do not trust any of the sourcing or dating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a big problem with this DR. Is it possible to divide this DR into a few different kinds of files? -- Lavallen (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, uploader cannot be trusted, and may be pulling our leg with uploads like File:Carnap Rudolf.jpg. Names like Johannes Brentano and Caleb Severin may be invented. I tagged File:Katarina Engberg Sweden.jpg - clearly taken from FOI. There are others that should be
- Even if that's true, not all images are from before 1969, and many have unclear sources and faulty licences (such as CC-0 instead of PD-Sweden). /grillo (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My domain is old sailing yachts and I can´t see that there is anything wrong (except own photo), with the pictures and the facts about Ilderim II and Singoalla.
These pictures I found via my interest of Marcus Wallenberg (1899-1982) and Boschaffären. Are you going to destroy everything without discernment of the uploader´s pictures? As far as I can see the contributions of the connected Peggy Cummins, at least the mentioned articles, are trustworthy and of high standard.
Windward (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your first edit on any WM project is in this DR, which you found exactly how? /grillo (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but I thought I could be of some help. In conjunction with the downloading of the "Ilderim" picture, I found that it was to be deleted and I was curious to know why. Then I also found "Singoalla".
If you and your friends at the meticulous scavenging department want to rule the roost by clean-sweeping and thereby obliterating all the traces of the undesired collaborator, it is no concern of mine. Anyhow not now when I have downloaded the images of the lovely yachts.
In your strenuous and highly creditable work with eradicating unacceptable co-workers. I am sure you will soon be awarded a medal of gold.
Windward (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- For those not aware, the writing style employed by Windward above echoes the styles of the previous Rebecca G accounts... /grillo (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted three; two that were obviously recent and one comic. Perhaps Pieter or someone else who has a better feel for the "photographic work" rule, could go through the rest and rearrange them into keep and delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that one cannot trust dates, authors and places given by this uploader. For example File:Europa och tjuren 1928.jpg would be fine if it really was from 1928. But I lived in Halmstad, and I doubt that this photo is that old. And the authe is indicated as "Caleb Severin" which I suspect is a hoax. Just like all those Carlstein archives etcetera. I recommend to delete to lot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted three; two that were obviously recent and one comic. Perhaps Pieter or someone else who has a better feel for the "photographic work" rule, could go through the rest and rearrange them into keep and delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted the whole remaining lot as the uploader appears to be untrustworthy as outlined by Pieter Kuiper. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. The sockpuppets (named above) are blocked now and their uploads have been nominated for deletion as well:
History of Western Australia (Part 2) files
[edit]- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.38.djvu
- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.39.djvu
- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.40.djvu
- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.41.djvu
- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.42.djvu
- File:History of West Australia (part 2) p.43.djvu
These are redundant to pages 448 to 453 of File:History of West Australia.djvu and are no longer used on enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support IIRC these were either uploaded before the djvu was built, or temporary uploads pending repairs to the djvu. Either way, all are now redundant. Moondyne (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 00juanpy00 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt all the authorship claims. No response on a previous request on the uploader's talk page. Old pics, logos, pics grabbed from websites - but all |Source ={{own}} |Author =00juanpy00. reuploads of deleted content. I do not see that the user has understood COM:L.
- File:Blooming1985.jpg
- File:Tito paz.jpg
- File:Los chiflados pte. clasico 155 (15).jpg
- File:5 a 0 clasio en 1994.jpg
- File:Logo vamo academia.jpg
- File:Del77.JPG
- File:Al paraguay.JPG
- File:Blooming pentacampeon.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Saibo (Δ) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: average "web collection" Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bloomingpentacampeon (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt the authorship / own work claim. Seem to be internet images from those sites http://club-blooming-marino.blogspot.com/ or http://planetablooming.blogspot.com/2008/09/ganate-una-polera-del-campeon.html
- File:BLOOMING CAMPEON 2009-1-.png
- File:BLOOMING CAMPEON 2005-1-.png
- File:BLOOMING CAMPEON 1999-1-.png
- File:BLOOMING CAMPEON 1998-1-.png
- File:BLOOMING CAMPEON 1984-1-.png
Saibo (Δ) 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Was marked as copyvio from http://www.rosadesaron.com.br/. I'm not so sure if this is even eligible for copyright (may be below the threshold of originality), so I'm turning it into a regular deletion request. Rosenzweig τ 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also included in this DR is File:Rosa-de-saron-horizonte-distante-33626.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Was marked as copyvio. No reason was stated, but the file can be found elsewhere on the web and may have been copied from somewhere. I don't think it is eligible for copyright (below the threshold of originality), but I have doubts whether this is in scope. Rosenzweig τ 20:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's in use at tr:Türkiye Mühendislik Yarışması, so that may mean it is in scope, but on the other hand, it's primarily text. --Rosenzweig τ 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File in use, and hence in scope. Sreejith K (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused and of dubious usefulness. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Данное изображение показывает неточности при съемке данного эпизода. Изображение используется в статье This image shows the inaccuracy when shooting of this episode. The image is used in the article Galygin.RU in the Russian section. CJMAXiK (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- By definition, if it's used, it's in scope, and my apologies if I missed that. Not sure how much it adds to that article however, and I'll leave that to editors on ru:wp to sort out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Можно опубликовать под не свободной лицензией I think that this file we are can download a non-free license --Ремеш (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- By definition, if it's used, it's in scope, and my apologies if I missed that. Not sure how much it adds to that article however, and I'll leave that to editors on ru:wp to sort out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No source, probably not own work. Insufficient information to know if this is public domain. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is very similar to three other maps in Category:Maps of the Gulf of Mexico, so I think it is OK from a copyright point of view. The description says "English: Fixed the gap in pic", but I can't find what that means. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is PD-ineligible (it could probably go either way), so I'm nominating for discussion. The uploader at English Wikipedia is not the author. The problem lies in: did the source fudge the data (thus creating creativity), or is the data exact? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: *I'm closing this request since no discussion has taken place and PD-ineligible is not obviously incorrect. Thuresson (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Diese Datei ist fehlerhaft. Siehe "Ewiger Kalender Russisch.png" LenderKarl (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Content of MAPO journal is copyright protected (see intranet site of MAPO); image is from 1939, so should still be copyright protected? 198.240.213.23 13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- maybe Public Domain according to Template:PD-Albania --Albinfo (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have just attempted to read the text below the photograph on the refered to webpage of MAPO through Google translate. According to this, the photograph has been taken in Rome. I've found no information regarding the photographer or about the first publication of this photo. I'm afraid that we cannot keep it on ground of the present information, hence Delete for now. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the photographer is unknown, could it qualified under {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? --Dereckson (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, a prerequisite would be that the author was not disclosed when this picture was published first. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} does not apply simply because we do not know who the photographer is. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the photographer is unknown, could it qualified under {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? --Dereckson (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing information to verify copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 01:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wurde inhaltlich ersetzt durch "Ewiger Kalender Russisch.png", da die Angabe "hundert" (in russischer Übersetzung) nur im deutschen Sprachgebrauch teilweise -bis zum Jahre 1999- exakt verwendet werden kann. 93.220.145.78 15:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)--LenderKarl (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Diese Datei enthält die unexakte Spaltenbezeichnung "hundert". Diese ist jedoch nur bis zum Jahre 1999 gerechtfertigt und nur im deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Diese SVG wird ersetzt durch "Ewiger_Dauerkalender_ab_01.01.01.png LenderKarl (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
