Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/03/28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive March 28th, 2012
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:TVS Television Sydney Logo 2012.png

[edit]

Uploaded by accident, not to be on commons Krystalspry (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader request. Sreejith K (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:.321e régiment d'infanterie de ligne-drapeau.svg

[edit]

corrupted file JeanBono (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: XML Parsing Error: not well-formed Sreejith K (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that this flag is to request suprétion? Fantassin 72 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Travis Maiuro.jpg

[edit]

There is no reason this photo should be on here. It serves no purpose. Notaknot (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Brisbane skyline montage.png

[edit]

Image from English Wikipedia. The uploader has uploaded many copyvios to that project and this seems to be one of those. Collage with 6 images, top one claimed to be own work and the other ones properly sourced as free images. The top one (i.e. the "own work") appears here in a forum post from 2009 which is earlier than the 2010 upload of this collage. The image is heavily cut in the collage and the resolution is much smaller but there is no doubt that it is the same as the image in the first post from 25 May 2009. Stefan4 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Not the uploader's photograph and clearly a photo lifted off SkyscraperCity. Uploader also has a history on en Wiki with uploading copyvios and claiming as own work. Bidgee (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vadivelu Election.jpg

[edit]

By the link, the photo appears to be taken from a publication, not by the uploader. The metadata says it was taken by The Hindu's deputy chief photographer, M. Vedhan, with the headline "ACTOR VADIVELU". See WP file.We hope (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rose Venkatesan.jpg

[edit]

This appears to be a photo from Savvy Magazine, as the template says--not the work of the uploader. See WP file. We hope (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unfree file taken from the internet . Martin H. (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fireblade Coverart.png

[edit]

Copyrighted game cover Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Osscar.PNG

[edit]

Parce que ceci est une attaque personnel et un geste diflamatoire du Programme de protection OscaR. 174.93.225.250 17:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion 99of9 (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Surya.jpg

[edit]

Looks like TV screenshot, unclear rights Funfood ␌ 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: TV screenshot PierreSelim (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Surya.jpg

[edit]

Suryaprayatnabangun (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in id.wiki and uploading a photo about himself. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. In addition, small photo without metadata, probably not own work as claimed, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Surya.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 13:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sg fr,.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sg nu,ber on des.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SD Dis.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Design number.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sg n1.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IBIGANZA Rep.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SG number1.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SGIZZO.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sgizzo.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:30cm x 30cm-gold.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:54988111735 2065 20110812111125 photo.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Michel y yo.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:01038109086 473 20110404033339 signature.tif

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:6itting.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Albertmiralpeix.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wat stelt dit voor.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope: no educational value and not used anywhere. Mathonius (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Drapeau zuxuplia.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: unused file, files uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack: used to create a hoax on fr:wikipedia. 笑話 means "joke". BrightRaven (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Projet image 1.jpg

[edit]

Useless for lack of quality and description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Projet image 2.jpg

[edit]

Useless for lack of quality. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nicholan.JPG

[edit]

Unnecessary inappropriate unused subsequent duplicate of File:Mecklenburg_Arms.svg. Perhelion (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "inappropriate" to have a jpg version of an image, that's news to me. Why would it be? A lot of people prefer to work with jpg. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing Commons:File_types#JPEG -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - inferior duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fc barcelona vs NY Redbulls (213580350).jpg

[edit]

Extreme poor quality, a bunch of shadows will be hardly educational. Much better images of the same match are available on Commons, like File:Barcelona FC v NY Red Bulls.jpg. Lobo (howl?) 17:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. Unusable poor quality, so out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Factores internos y externos de la negociacion.pdf

[edit]

Permission and rights of used photographs in PDF not clear. Funfood ␌ 19:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sophiegraham.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture, only upload, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SelfTitledBrisbaneHeights.JPG

[edit]

Description says album cover, band or album not found on internet, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Spoor Methodist Church, Whickham - geograph.org.uk - 980048.jpg

[edit]

vpvf,vhegwrr 66.63.208.195 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: DR by a vandal George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cata.PNG

[edit]

Website scrrenshot, Donald Duck logo possibly unfree, out of COM:PS Funfood ␌ 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rapidly exploring Random Tree (RRT) 984x735.gif

[edit]

Broken, better version available here. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:JaimydeRuijter.jpg

[edit]

out of scope; juvenile whose promo article has been removed on nl-wiki for lack of notability MoiraMoira (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous reason on commons. I have added 3 categories 91.65.69.223 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope, self promotional George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Price List.png

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SaMmY26.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SaMmY 1 Man-2 - Copy.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sarwan Kumar.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sawan kumar 2211.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sawan kumar1 2211.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SGIZZO COVER Des.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Santorum images

[edit]

I know that commons doesn't have a BLP policy like en.wiki's, but I believe these images are entirely out of scope. They are not educational at all; rather, they're nothing but an attempt to soapbox and to demean a living person. Commons should not be used as a propaganda tool. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - Related deletion discussion, at Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum cocktails. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A frothy  Keep. Satirical images produced in the debate over a highly notable bigot. They're likely to become more useful and historically interesting if his holiness gets elected. --Simonxag (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- Keep all. I don't believe anyone has ever made a politically neutral political cartoon. Contributors at the various wikis can discuss how to use these images in a way that complies with their policies, but as nominator acknowledges, these images don't lapse from our policies. I would be willing to agree to the deletion of the last image as it seems to have been thrown together with very little effort, except it is has already been used on a WMF project. Geo Swan (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 Kept, The general consensus is that as a group the images are valid political satire and are in scope, as they could reasonably be used for such subjects. If there are individual images which are thought to be out of scope, then individual DR should take place for those. russavia (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

[edit]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

These images were clearly created to smear and demean Rick Santorum. They were imported to Commons, and incorporated into content as part of the w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. I dont like Rick Santorum's positions, but I agree with Salvio giuliano that the Commons should not be used in this way. The WMF board has recently passed the resolution wmf:Resolution:Media about living people which clarifies that media of that kind should be deleted. COM:SCOPE doesnt overrule WMF board resolutions. At least one of these images is used on other projects; the projects can import any deleted image locally if they feel that the usage on their project is acceptable. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment -- um, NO, it's OUR JOB to host in-use files at commons.
in-use = in scope.
"acceptable" is subjective, & your personal standard is NOT commons' policy. Lx 121 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The individual depicted in the satirical parody images is a public figure, being a former United States Senator and candidate for President of the United States. I don't believe he is a Wikimedian. -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor, please read w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism which answers your questions in detail, but I will quote part of the intro: "In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index." And I will also quote one more sentence: "Noam Cohen of The New York Times described the situation as a hijacking of online identity." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html user:Cirt used Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wiktionary as part of that identity hijack, which still exists today. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John for the links; I just went through them. I've no problem with homosexuality, but don't support attacking a person against my views. But I have a difficulty to understand the entire topic as I have little knowledge in the US politics.
I see two problems in accepting this topic for a general discussion. Both the subject and the photographer are non Wikimedians; we have not received any complaints from them. They can mail us, but it is up to them.
It seems you blame a particular user alone in this case, probably the uploader. Unlike EN Wikipedia, here admins form strong groups and blindly support each other, so just counting of vote never works. Better make a formal complaint through the email I suggested above (preferably from the subject and the photographer) and review the entire issue through ongoing communications with them. If we have similar issues, it is better to form a bench to deal such cases; trying to deal it through a DR is not much helpful. It is my experience in the Jimmy Wales case too. I have no hope in that DR; that is why I didn't voted there. We need to develop a better system to handle such cases. Otherwise our projects will deteriorated as another adult entertainment site. Jee 13:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Cirt - parody is important. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 1 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've been asked by Jayen466 here to include the result of the media in Category:Santorum neologism-related images in this batch. I would prefer this was not done, as big batches become messy discussions, and I'd rather focus this request on the media files that clearly depict Rick Santorum. The other images are part of the same campaign, and do need to be re-evaluated, however they don't include his face or likeness. The nominated set also have issues to do with personality rights. e.g. this flickr photo was digitally modified to create File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, and this flickr photo is the basis of the creative art that is File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg and File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg, by an artist of no known notability. There are a few more items in Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum which could easily fall under the new BLP-media resolution, but I think we should re-evaluate the previous batch nomination before looking at media to determine whether they are verifiable & neutral. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To determine if what exactly is verifiable and neutral John? Verifiability and neutrality is a Wikipedia concept, and isn't required here on Commons in relation to media. Can you please explain exactly what you mean here. russavia (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi russavia, blame the WMF board for forcing Wikipedia terminology down Wikimedia Commons throats without consultation :P There will be a lot of policy discussions coming from this (or a board clarification), so I can only offer my opinions on how we may attempt to implement the WMF board resolution. Firstly, I hope we dont implement 'verifiable & neutral' at the discrete file level, as that would mean deleting all political statements, including cartoons. Individual pieces of media are never neutral. The only way I see to implement 'verifiable & neutral' is that we don't accept user-contributed art about a living person (i.e. it must have been public speech - published or presenting in a public arena), and we don't allow our collections of media about a living person to be disproportionately negative or positive, as compared to public opinion of the person. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still legitimate satire about legitimately notable public figure, still  Keep. DS (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This DR appears invalid because it does not name the images that are being proposed. How am I supposed to know how to comment if I do not know what you all are talking about? darkweasel94 14:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the same list as before; thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an attempt to link this type of political protest with the issue surrounding the use of Jimmy Wales's likeness for a portrait painted with a penis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_%28the_making_of%29.ogv Surely no one here sees this as the same issue? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, at least. So far we have no complaints from the subject or the photographer. Here the uploader only upload the contents somewhere available; not "commissioned" anything. So it seems a WP:POINTy nomination per "If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale." Jee 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These nominations and many more are caused by the WMF board resolution. Santorum is a 5+ year advocacy/harassment campaign; the Jimmy thing pales into insignificance IMO. User:Jkadavoor, Santorum has complained at length about the problem, in reliable sources and many TV interviews. Maybe there is no email in our OTRS about it, but it is an undisputed fact on the Wikipedia article that he finds these images offensive, and there are many reliable sources that assert this is harassment. Why do you choose to ignore complaints that don't come to OTRS? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm not insisting for an OTRS. My only initial discomfort was the way you presented this nomination stating "If the Commons community doesnt remove intentionally derogatory media about Santorum, then..." which is unfair. As I stated above I've difficulty to understand this entire topic because of my lack of knowledge in US politics. But many comments below convinced me that this is worth for a re-review. And if we are deciding to keep any images that are adapted works; we must remove any links to the Original Author and Source; if he demands. I am  Abstain for the time being; but will change my vote if I can understand the topic any further. Thanks, Jee 10:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per John Vandenberg, Peteforsyth and many others. A pointy use is not worth to consider. Jee 06:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not editorialise other projects' content. If they use it and it's freely licensed, it is within scope. We do not pick and choose which uses are "legitimate". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this DR. It had 20+ uses at that time (if I remember well). We did not editorialize, while closing that DR? Jee 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take a DR that had no comments on it establishing much of a consensus. Also, there's a difference between user space and main space; main space is a serious part of the project, not the toy of just one, and deleting a file from there is a much bigger deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we kept this as it used in a userpage. Do we need to keep "artistic interpretación" of a living person for the sake of "in use in a user page?" My understanding is that many of us bend, twist and use our policies according to their interests. :( Jee 05:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, always vaguely accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith; that helps discussions. That case is quite a bit different in that no privacy issues were brought up because it closely follows a photo we have in Commons. That DR was all about scope, not artistic interpretations. You want to argue that serious users shouldn't be given more leeway as to user/talk pages images? I don't see how that's relevant to our current discussion. Given that no user commented on both of those DRs, accusing them of bending policy to get the different result is entirely unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't noticed that even the license there was invalid as the breach of CC terms? The file was created on March 2011. So you can assume how many copyright violations may have occurred since then in every reuse, if happened. It is not my job to fix the mistakes others are doing. Do our jobs well; or take a retirement. I'm not accusing any; it is a self crytisizing comment. Take it or not. Jee 03:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what "there" or "the file" is supposed to refer to in that comment, or how any copyright violation isn't a strong deviation from the topic under discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Keep per previous. Satirizing and mocking prominent political figures has been a major part of the US political discourse for more than 2 centuries, including demeaning caricatures of deliberately vulgar taste. (See for example this 1804 caricature of Thomas Jefferson as a vomiting dog.) Senator Santorum, as a prominent US political figure, and a former and possibly future presidential candidate, in the public eye, is subject to such mockery the same as others have been for centuries. It is not the place of Wikimedia to try to judge whether satires by opponents meet standards of taste, fairness, or decency. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, File:1804 prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions byJamesAkin LC.jpg is a most fascinating example, I am sure that images similar to that one were submitted as evidence in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be very, very clear this delete vote is not based upon COM:SCOPE, because the images are clearly in scope. The DR also needs to be extended to cover ALL images in Category:Santorum neologism and Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum, and without prejudice on whether the images are in use on projects (or on off-project sites via the Instant Commons function). The resolution by the WMF is very clear -- all media hosted on WMF operated servers since the date of the passing of the Pricasso Amendment are from herein required to be "neutral" and "verifiable". These Santorum images are, as John correctly points out, neither neutral nor verifiable. R.I.P. a censorship-free Commons; the WMF has spoken. russavia (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should that not be extended to the entirety of Category:Caricatures, and whatever we have on political cartoons? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entirety? The WMF resolution is about living people. Caricatures/political cartoons are a likely source of 'BLP' problems, as they tend to push the boundary in order to make a point, so I have tried to populate Category:21st-century caricatures (which is where most unpublished caricatures will be, and some copyvios to boot), and then I created & populated Category:Caricatures of living people (which includes quite a few drawings of Wikipedians). The most important point I want to make after 900-odd edits categorising these files is that Wikimedia Commons doesnt have many unpublished caricatures. So reaching 100% "verifiable" wrt caricatures of living people is not going to result in many deletions. OTOH, achieving "neutrality" is not as simple. ;-) However, besides the well known problem items by Carlos Latuff‎, I didn't see too many that I felt were obviously inflammatory. Some were poor quality, uploaded by drive-by contributors, which I think we could easily find consensus to delete. I dont like the idea of deleting user-generated caricatures that accurately capture how published caricaturists have portrayed a living person (good or bad), as a few of our user-generated caricatures are damn good, and hit the 'neutral' mark to my mind. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to strong  Keep. As noted by John Vandenberg in a section above the resolution was made without consultation with the wider community, and they have passed a resolution with extremely damaging wording. As seen from Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Streisand_effect, I started a DR using the precise wording from the WMF resolution and this was rejected by the community. Here we are in a similar situation, using the WMF resolution and its wording in a DR situation. This is extremely problematic, as the resolution should be discussed by the community at large, and then an attempt be made at changing Commons policy (this would be required), then DR's can take place. Doing this in reverse is extremely problematic, and extremely damaging to Commons. These images are on a notable subject, and there is no copyright issues, so they can be in scope. Not being in use does not require deletion. russavia (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will surprise some coming from me, but:  Delete those and only those that aren't in use on a Wikimedia project (including talk pages; they too should stay coherent archives), because I do not see the educational value. They do not appear to be preexisting notable caricatures, or made by an even marginally notable artist, or published e.g. in a major newspaper. If they were any of these things, I would say we should keep them (like File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg per criterion 2). It is entirely possible that "other stuff exists", but that is never a valid argument, we aren't a project for publishing one's own caricatures. darkweasel94 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will note however, darkweasel, that even images used on sister projects and therefore in scope actually are nominated for deletion in this request, and the prior one, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and that's why I said only those that aren't in use should be deleted. darkweasel94 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the others are linked through sister-links for example at Wikinews, what is being proposed would be an attempt to censor the images and empty out the categories as much as possible which seems to be an abridgement of the very issue at the heart of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, don't you think, darkweasel? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That ruling is fairly irrelevant here, because not everything that isn't illegal is also within our scope - we regularly delete stuff that we could keep and still not violate any laws. If you can make a convincing case for how each of the unused images are good illustrations for the topics of these Wikinews articles, then yes I would say we can keep them. darkweasel94 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could be used in the future for new articles on Wikinews. By censoring them here, we rob other writers of perusing them. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I really don't quite understand this but Russavia has nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Streisand effect images that are w:WP:Featured Pictures on three (3) different language Wikipedias and used on many other language Wikipedias as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the resolution is more subtle then this. I do not believe that we can tell any wikis to upload locally; I believe that anything that a Wikimedia Wiki can use legitimately under that resolution Commons can host under that resolution. As such:
    •  Keep File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg. It is verifiable that someone wore that costume, and by making it a photo it lets us deal with the subject at a distance.
    •  Delete The others; they're unnotable non-neutral illustrations (File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg is out of scope, to boot).
    •  Neutral With the possible exception of File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, which is a horse of a different color. I think Category:Artwork by Greg Uchrin should live or die together; are they notable artworks from a politically charged author, or non-neutral artworks?
  • --Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Prosfilaes, and what about File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg, which has been in-use for almost two years at Wikinews, at n:Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle? -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's in use because you put it there. This is the tail wagging the dog. Andreas JN466 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it was subsequently reviewed by another member of the Wikinews community, became a stable article, was archived, and has been stable for years since then. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The resolution requires us to take human dignity into account. We balance this against our goal of hosting free educational material and other policies. There are indeed similarities between the Pricassso video and these Santorum images. Both insult the subject in a way that is ironically associated with the topic they have voiced opinions on (porn, homosexuality) and both do so in a way that is juvenile and beneath our best satirists. However the Pricassso video of Jimbo's portrait has negligible educational value and zero notability (the artist is marginally notable), and the conflict there is one purely internal to Wikimedia projects. The Santorum affair has had notable press coverage. Since the main focus of the Santorum satire was a neologism rather than an image, it may be that some of these images also fail to be notable contributions to the notable campaign. I would support keeping the notable caricatures but removing any others. Other people here are better able to judge which than me. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom that these violate the revised WMF guidelines as linked to. I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. yes, he is a public official, so he is a legitimate target for political parody and even political attacks. Are we really sure we should be the instigators of such attacks? I see the dividing line being where we report on existing debate by providing images related to the debate, but dont add to the debate. I seem to be in the distinct minority here. I know that we got rid of Commons:Deletion requests/File:African women icon.svg primarily due to its being an original work by a wikimedian, which was a variant on a racial stereotype, thus could not be used to illustrate an article on historical racism, and thus was out of scope, but would have been fine if it was a controversial, well known cartoon released into the public domain by the creator. if we can delete an image like this, i think the santorum images can also be deleted. (ps i am not a santorum partisan in the slightest, and i would be fine with keeping any of these images if they were posted to the creators own websites or other appropriate venues, then got significant publicity, and were THEN uploaded here.).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Mercurywoodrose's comment: I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. The pre-existing notability of the artist should be the criterion. If the artist is not notable, there is no educational value and Commons becomes merely a platform for political (self-)promotion. That is not part of the project scope as I understand it. --Andreas JN466 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems consensus may be leaning towards deleting any images by non-notable artists. Is this a principle that is in practice for other media or art forms. Many of the location photos are not by notable artists but I suppose I could argue the location is. The recent "black face" graphic was deleted for being out of scope due to its non-notable artist. Still trying to wrap my head around this one. 131.137.245.206 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is where consensus is going, but I hope it is limited to art about living people. To that end, I have proposed a "Moratorium on user-generated art about living people". John Vandenberg (chat) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete If people want to publish their own political cartoons, Tumblr and Flickr are free to all. Even ignoring the loss of encyclopedic purpose here, there is no possible knowledge-promulgating purpose for such works; it is a gross violation of our supposed neutrality for us to be put such a use. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we must delete images, I would say that File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg would need to be kept. There's a difference between creating your own cartoons and documenting others', especially in public events such as Mardi Gras. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, i didnt look at EACH image this time, two more are here from the last time i looked. I agree that the above file should be kept, as an exception to my deletion comments above. that one is simply a documentation of a very public event. If the event was offensive, the answer is more free speech, which we can also document if public. Im not sure about File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, this is a cartoonist who has gotten some attention, and its a webcomic, so he at least is hosting his own images in addition to providing some to us.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought he might be notable by the name in the filename, but didn't recognise it. I did recognise the Zach Weinersmith one in the Santorum-neologism-related category. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these have copyright issuesː the costume because I do not see that permission was obtained from the costumer, and the other does not link to a place where permission is granted for this image. ̴̴̴̴̴173.66.8.19 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The costume I do not believe is copyrightable, as it is not itself an original work, but instead consists of fairly ordinary clothes and a large penis type thing. The penis type thing may be copyrightable, but it is a small part of the overall costume and therefore falls under COM:DM. As for the copyright of the Weinersmith image, (I cannot believe I just had to search "weinersmith santorum". It's just wrong.) it has an OTRS ticket, which would indicate that it is suitably licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A key piece of evidence in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey and calling him an "ass". That cartoon is unfortunately now lost because there was no Commons to preserve it, but Commons is full of images (such as these) that have been considered vile, vicious attacks on political figures. It's part of the culture and heritage of the United States that political figures are fair game for attacks and parodies. These images are legitimate political discourse found on Flickr and properly uploaded as we upload all kinds of user-generated, original work. (The only one I'm on the fence about is File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg, which appears to be just some guy at a party.) I would not include them in a Wikipedia article but I can imagine all sorts of potential uses for them that fit in with the mission of Commons. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. COM:SCOPE excludes "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use", "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack", "Advertising or self-promotion" (these are representative examples given). Is it your view that any piece of suitably licensed amateur art to be found anywhere on the net should be uploaded to Commons? Andreas JN466 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fascinating. I have created an article about w:The Entry (the cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey). It appears to have been widely distributed at the time, unlike these caricatures of Santorum. I doubt the Washington cartoon would have been lost had the internet existed back in 1789. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a private collection. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Gamaliel talks of Commons "preserving" "all kinds of user-generated, original work". This is a frequent misconception, that Commons is a kind of digital ark for freely licensed media. I think some people truly think that is what Commons is, hence anything with a free licence is claimed to be "educational" and any attempt to delete media is "censorship". But that isn't Commons' mission at all. It might be a worthy project goal for someone, like the Internet Archive, but it isn't what WMF have created here. If you can change the mission of commons to be "a repository of all freely licensed media" then I'd agree that everything should be allowed and we'd no longer have deletion discussions other than over licence issues. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Commons shouldn't censor political expression as long as it isn't slanderous or libelous, which these aren't. As for scope and notability, the reaction to Santorum and other politicians in public by Americans is part of our national political culture. These aren't ephemeral or marginal, and I don't see anything in the WMF resolution calling for all images about living people that aren't praising or promoting them to be immediately nuked. INeverCry 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I could be convinced to delete for lack of notability (COM:SCOPE) but I have issue with deleting these in response to the new BLP resolution given the obvious political satire and parody aspects. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It is somewhat routine to delete user-generated artwork here, and in my view we should be less permissive of it, except where there is some independent reason to think a specific work of art is significant. If any of these images was created by an artist known outside our community for their work, or if they were published independent of Commons (e.g., in a news article about perceptions of Rick Santorum), in my view, that would be a reason to keep; but absent that I think deletion is best. (I should note, this vote has nothing to do with the scandalous nature of the images, or personality rights. I have the same view about these paintings, which are innocuous and attractive, but as far as I know have no particular significance as works of art.) I also don't think the resolution is relevant, as Rick Santorum is a public figure and the images relate to what he is known for. -Pete F (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I was falling off the fence until you brought up the other paintings, which I could envision as being useful in their own right especially if nothing from someone more notable was available. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One point I failed to address is the use by other projects, which has been discussed a fair amount above. I just checked, and only the first one is in use, and it's on a talk page on Wikinews -- not the main space. This does not qualify as a legitimate reason to keep it -- see here: Commons:SCOPE#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
In answer to Saffron Blaze -- I should have been clearer. I have not carefully considered every one of the Ingeborg Bernhard paintings, and you're right -- some might be worth keeping. My point is, being created and uploaded by a Commons user isn't enough in itself to establish that a file has artistic or educational merit; something more is needed to justify a "keep" vote. -Pete F (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The issue regarding the Pricasso work seems to me to be clear delete. Same with clear keep on the Streisand Effect images. These require much more editorial judgment as there is no clear logic statement I can make in my head that results in a decision. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
n:Santorum_neologism_gains_prominence_during_US_election_cycle uses File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg. I don't know why it's not showing up on the image page, but the image is in use there, and has been for a long time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange. Yesterday it was working fine on that specific image. I've noted this at Commons:Village_pump#Backlinks_missing, as it might be happening to other images. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I'm pretty sure I've encountered that before, but I've never been able to narrow down the cause. At any rate -- I don't think any of these that is in use in main space on any project (or otherwise substantively in use) should be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pete F, I think each project needs to find their own way. In general Wikimedia Commons should host any free content that used on other projects, but we already break that rule when it comes to copyright. English Wikipedia hosts many media files that are PD in the US, but not PD in the home country of the creator. The Commons community has chosen a different scope wrt copyright, in the interests of being more appealing to an international audience. Wikinews & Wikipedia host media files that are non-free, because they are fair-use in specific contexts. Likewise it is possible for the Commons community to decide that an image is not suitable for its collection, however Wikinews makes an exception for the image because they are using it in a specific context where it is appropriate, or even educational. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@John, there's merit to what you say, but I'll stick with my vote as it stands: delete those that are not in use in project main space, but keep the one that is. The precedents you cite have to do with licensing, while this instance has to do with personality rights. The licensing framework is set out by a pretty clear resolution of the Wikimedia board dating to 2007. (Not to get too much into the details, but for the benefit of those who don't know the history: projects are invited to establish "Exemption Doctrine Policies" relating to things like copyright and fair use; some projects have done so, establishing clear policies and processes.) There is no analogous broad board resolution relating to personality rights; although the recently-amended BLP resolution and "Images of identifiable people" resolution do relate to personality rights, they are rather specific and not comprehensive to the level of the EDP framework. But, it's a longstanding and (I think) pretty uncontroversial principle here that if a file is in use, substantively, by another Wikimedia project, it is considered to be within Commons' scope. If and when we have a coherent and comprehensive framework for making decisions around personality rights, I would agree with your take; in the meantime, I think there are two options: (1) keep the file here in order to non-disruptively serve Wikinews, or (2) pursue deletion through the Wikinews site and article where the image is used, in reference to this resolution. -Pete F (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that Commons' primary goal must be as an archive for the other Wikimedia projects. As such I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that if an image can pass the policy in use in a Wikimedia project, it obviously passes the policy for Commons purposes. I don't necessarily think that we should keep File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg but if we do delete it, it should be because we are of the opinion that it is unsuitable for use on Wikimedia projects, including where it is on Wikinews. Maybe that will end up with some locally held images due to disagreements about suitability, but I don't think we should go into it with the opinion that's a good natural thing rather then a problematic one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bug, caused by Cirt and Brian McNeil uploading the artwork to Wikinews and then moving it to a new name. See wikinews log. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was unaware that a bug would have been caused by that. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the issue in a nutshell. Deciding what is spurious attack or legitimite satire. In this case I think these represent the satirical response Santorum generated with his politically motivated speech. It is a stark reminder to those in public office that you may be held accountable for what you say. The topic is in scope but it would be prefered for a properly curated collection of free images that these be notable in their own right. 131.137.245.206 13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note the fourth last paragraph of the current wording of the resolution
Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
So, doesn't this mean, that all the rest of the resolution applies here at commons as laid out in Commons:BLP? Well, isn't Commons:BLP#Moral issues the pertinent section? I don't think it says any of what this nomination claims is required of us.
If our nominator thinks Commons:BLP#Moral_issues has to be updated to comply with this recent WMF resolution there are mechanisms for them to lobby for those updates. However, is making nominations that hinge on interpreting Commons:BLP#Moral_issues as if those changes had already been made the way to argue for those updates? I don't think so. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tineye shows File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg is also being re-used at [2].
No WMF project created the discussion that associated Senator Santorum with a frothy discharge. That discussion was part of the arena of political discourse. To not cover this discussion would be a breach of neutrality. Does covering the discussion erode Senator Santorum's dignity? Senator Santorum is a public figure. When an individual chooses to become a politician at the National level -- particularly in the USA -- they have chosen to sacrifice their dignity. They have chosen to be the target of criticism that might seem unfair, that might seem unfairly unrebuttable.
Consider former Senator, former VPOTUS, Al Gore. He will forever be the butt of jokes based on twisting a comment he made about the invention of the internet. Gore, a legislator, said something like he "took the initiative for creating the internet". Vint Cerf and other computer scientist who, fairly, really did "invent" the internet, credit Senator Gore for taking the legislative initiative for creating the internet.
Gore partisans would no doubt be overjoyed if they could get all WMF projects to stop covering the discussion over whether Gore did or didn't claim to have "invented" the internet. But, even if the discussion erodes Gore's dignity, neutrality requires us to find a neutral way to cover it. I suggest exactly the same principle should apply to discussions that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tineye examples are worthwhile, as they illustrate that Commons media is often reused outside our projects, and that we should take that into consideration. (In this case, the example cited appears to be an illegal copyright violation, and also would not be impacted by the deletion of the file, since the author copied the file to a Google server.)
I'm not inclined to change my vote, but I do think this consideration is compelling. If nothing else, it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies. If files like these are to be deleted, it is much better if they are deleted swiftly after uploading, since it (a) minimizes the possibility that the deletion would interfere with reuse, and (b) gives better feedback to the uploader about what is or isn't acceptable. -Pete F (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification please -- are you asserting that since http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca/2012_02_01_archive.html doesn't credit either the commons, or the flickr source that it is a copyright violation? Or are you asserting that the uncredited image used there demonstrates the original flickr source is a copyright violation?
In either case doesn't it demonstrate that the general concept of political cartoons that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges are part of the arena of political discourse?
If you are asserting the commons version is a copyright violation may I suggest you really need to explain your reasoning, or accept that everyone will discount this argument? Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The former, of course. There is no problem with the Flickr stream. But (both!) of the sites you linked (rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca and hinterlandgazette.com) have violated the terms of the CC licenses. (Hinterland appears to be OK with respect to this specific image, but has several other images erroneously credited to "Wikipedia.") -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you accept that the flickr contributor is the creator. Intellectual property owners are free to release images under multiple terms and licenses. For all you know the re-users at those sites contacted the flickr contributor, who explicitly gave them more generous re-use permissions than flickr allows. I regard it as a stretch for you to assert, as if it were a fact, that the re-users were copyright violators. For all you know those sites could be the work of the flickr contributor.
I can't imagine why we're still talking about this detail. Please rewind and note that I stated that they appear to be copyright violations. Apart from, perhaps, some obsessive need on your part to get every word perfect, what is the point of continuing this discussion? I didn't come here to argue with you, my entire purpose in leaving the comment was to underscore the importance of your initial point. Sheesh. -Pete F (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, for the sake of argument, the re-users are violating the flickr contributor's IP rights, how do you jump from that to "it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies." For all we know those re-users got the images from flickr, not the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Commons:BLP#Moral issues statement against "attacks upon his honour and reputation" is quite reasonable with regard to private individuals, but the standard is and must be different for prominent national leaders. I say "must" because such wording can and in some countries has, been broadly interpreted and used to prohibit all public political dissent. If applied stringently here on Commons, it would prohibit uploading everything regarding any and all living political figures anywhere in the world that is not fully supportive of that person, be it Senator Santorum, President Obama, Kim Jong-il, or anyone else. Since I oppose turning Commons into a repository of nothing but sycophancy, I must strongly oppose this deletion nomination. (Note: A few commentators have brought up such issues as project scope and notability. I point out that neither of these issues are being considered in this deletion request; they are not mentioned by the nominator. Were individual images or groups of images put under a different nomination for those reasons, I might well support deletion of certain individual images. But I am not even considering that distraction at this point. In this listing, they are proposed for deletion for the stated reason that they "smear and demean Rick Santorum", so I vehemently oppose this deletion request and urge other users who believe in the right to disagree with prominent political leaders to do likewise.)-- Infrogmation (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Files are checked against all the applicable policies to determine whether their presence here is justified. For example, if in the course of a DR it is discovered that a file is a copyright violation, we don't say that the file has to be kept in that DR, and then a new DR opened giving that as the new deletion rationale before the file can be deleted. Andreas JN466 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep -- First, I believe these images are compliant with Commons:BLP#Moral issues. Second, I believe that censoring these images would be a breach of neutrality, not an act supporting neutrality. WMF projects didn't link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. To obfuscate this discussion is to partisanly side with Senator Santorum. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember any pictures of Santorum as an ice cream cone outside of Wikimedia. Outside of Wikimedia, it's come up in a purely verbal manner, so us approaching the matter in a purely written way seems to reflect the larger world in a neutral way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand there may be several, dozens, or thousands, of political images that linked Senator Santorum with frothy discharges -- but the others aren't hosted here because the others weren't clearly "free" images. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I can understand neutrality in an article but not in an image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Santorum is a public figure who ran for the highest political office in the most powerful country in the world. These images are verifiable examples of a notable political campaign criticizing that public figure's stance on major issues. I do not believe the resolution gives any indication that such reasons are not sufficient for retaining the files.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Devil's Advocate, indeed there are interesting examples at Category:Caricatures of Barack Obama of images critical of a U.S. President which also shouldn't be censored. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep – Commons should be able to host and share satirical material, caricatures, and mockery. Caring so much about hurt feelings is what's going to destroy Commons. Freedom of speech exist; freedom from negative feelings and freedom to only receive kindness don't exist and shouldn't exist. The WMF resolution isn't aligned with the principles that the Commons community should value. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Michaeldsuarez, for emphasizing the Wikimedia Commons community value of freedom of speech, most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't see a need to delete these images, they are covered by free speech/satire. I don't like the backdoor censorship introduced with (or misused for) this (strange) WMF resolution . --Denniss (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Denniss, for noting it appears a censorship tactic is going on here, very astute. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt censorship was at the root of this. More like a press to test. Throw up a bunch of DRs and see where the line if any gets drawn. It's disruptive and divisive but in the end it may work. 131.137.245.206 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have wondered the same thing. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze, please note that File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in-use on Wikinews and therefore in-scope. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather self referential. BTW, how old was the Biebs when that picture was made? Aren't there copyright issues with Toys. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an artist's rendering of their idea of what a toy would look like, not an actual toy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, next time I will look at the image a bit more closely before beaking off. Still, drags the satire into seedy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, I find myself agreeing with Pete F. above. If any of these "parodies" had come from notable artists or been widely printed then they'd definitely be within scope, but all I see here are the works of amateur artists with no particular impact. There is ample precedent for not allowing Commons to be used as a file hosting service, and I think that applies here. If there were any images on the topic of the neologism that had appeared in print or on one of the largest internet news sites, I would view that as within scope. Note that this !vote is not related to the content of the images, tasteless though they are, nor on my strongly negative personal feelings towards the subject. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Keep -- COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED. how many time does this have to be repeated, before it FINALLY SINKS IN!?
rick santorum is an american POLITICIAN. the items listed for DR are ALL legitimate political commentary, they ARE within scope, & they DO NOT "violate BLP". for one thing THIS IS WIKIMEDIA COMMONS not WIKIPEDIA. for another, a blandly-worded "mission statement" by the wfm board IS NOT "law" @ commons.
finally; the fact that we are doing this DR ALL OVER AGAIN, after a clear keep, makes a joke of commons' DR policy.
this whole business (the repeated DR here, @ pricasso, etc.) is a push to censor wikimedia commons, and it is an ABUSE of "BLP". the only point being demonstrated is that we BADLY need to have a community-wide blow-out review of blp "ideology".
Lx 121 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funny part is that is what is happening right now all across Commons. Several DRs and Proposals were thrown up to test the waters in response to BLP. The sad part is that in most instances the cases brought forward have little to do with BLP and have more to do with COM:SCOPE or Privacy. I would not delete these images for BLP, but most of them should go as being non-notable. Saffron Blaze (talk)
  •  Keep. I do not think that the WMF resolution applies to caricatures at all. All caricatures are by definition non-neutral and non-verifiable regardless of notability of the artist. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I find a harm/benefit analysis helpful in these cases. I roughly agree with a combination of {@Prosfilaes ∪ @Cirt} - the first three seem out of scope; the last three have more significant use or relevance.
    Benefit     Harm
Relevance of parody Ad hominems
Educational value & use Offensiveness, likelihood of harm
Notability of subject Impact of image on searches for subject
Notability of style / artist / message     Using Commons as a soapbox: original art / message
Some of these parodies aren't very good or topical; on the other hand they're not ad-hominem, just a bit random. Others such as the Uchrin panel focus on the subject's topical views.
Most are not in use; however they're also not very offensive. Other popular caricatures of the subject online are much more offensive.
The subject is quite notable. These images have high visibility - 2 of the first 6, 7 of the first 35 images in google image search, but there are thousands of popular Santorum parody images online, so this isn't a huge fraction of the whole.
The style of the images is fairly non-notable; some are original art by non-notable artists. The 'ice cream cone' meme wasn't a popular one - it is mainly visible online because it is on Commons. These two seem more representative.
On balance: I don't see either strong parody value or strong BLP concerns. Nor any reason to remove images that are in use. --SJ+ 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SJ. What do you think of the images in Category:Santorum neologism-related images? They are not part of this deletion request, but I'd be interested in your views. Andreas JN466 15:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why these werent also under consideration. Does anyone else see them as relevant here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-nominated the set originally nominated on this page, without adding or removing any. Perhaps I should have added File:Santorum artwork by Zach Weinersmith.gif, as that is another caricature, but I did see it. I view the fecal matter images as a distinct set, as they only use the neologism/his surname. If there is no consensus to delete the caricatures, I think the case to delete poo photos named after someone notable is much weaker, and would need to be focused on COM:SCOPE. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree John. The caricatures are all ok, it's the photos of bagged shit that there is a problem with, as they distinctly go against the Pricasso Amendment's verifiability clause. Due to the Pricasso Amendment all material on Commons now has to be verifiable and neutral, and there is no verifiable evidence that any of the shit photos on Commons in the neologism category is "Santorum" as defined by the neologism; that being "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." If any of the photos in Category:Santorum neologism-related images are of actual santorum, then the only thing that I have to say is that some people obviously need to learn to douche before........................ russavia (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the file descriptions say it's dog shit. As for douches, while it's off-topic, for those who give a crap there is a most excellent tool available here. Ergonomically designed (not for dogs though, I suppose). Andreas JN466 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a great product! I see this douche kit with a 6 foot long hose. I just know that there is someone out there who thought that they had to use all six foot to....nevermind... russavia (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a Commons version. How cool is that? DracoEssentialis (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff you find ... ;) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:)) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would support closing this deletion requests as kept for lack of consensus to delete. (This would not preclude relisting individual images here for deletion consideration for completely different reasons, for example scope or notability.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I thank Sj (talk · contribs) for the most helpful and astute analysis presented above. As to the comment above by Infrogmation (talk · contribs), it seems that rather than no consensus, current community consensus above is for Keep. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The problem with assessing consensus is that the reasons for keep and delete are so varied. Some have based their decision on concerns of censorship, other on scope, others on notability, others on BLP, etc. The only coherent consensus I can see is delete those that are non-notable, as is common practice on Commons, and keep any that are notable works of political satire or parody. Very few have framed this as an actual BLP issue. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not a common practice on Commons, but it seems a practice you wish to become common on Commons. Works of political satire and parody have been protected forms of speech against censorship for hundreds of years, and are protected by the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are protected forms of speech, doesn't mean we necessarily want to host them. darkweasel94 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but even those that are in use on other sites are the subject of attempted censorship here on Commons, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't want any kind of censorship here on Commons. It would a be a gross violation of our mission. However, I don't want Commons to become a simple repository of everyone's crap art and political bile. If a work is of high quality, or notable or very useful then that is what we need to make sure we keep. Keeping some of this crap does not further this mission and getting rid of it would not have anything to do with censorship. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the later cases Hustler vs. NBC, where Hustler tried to force NBC to show the cartoon of Falwell, and Falwell v. Hustler, where Falwell tried to insist that Hustler print a rebuttal cartoon. Maybe because both parties knew that they couldn't force a third party to publish something or continue to publish something they didn't want to. Wave the censorship flag all you want, but it's simply not our responsibility to store every non-notable attack image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Hustler v. Falwell was the latest final case, as it was before the Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care who is using it if the use was in response to the uploading here by a non-notable artist. If the artist was non-notable it should have been deleted. If we accept it is in scope now because someone used it then we would by consequence need to invite any and all uploads to a period of review where it might get used and then magically become in scope after the fact. Moreover, I have a real problem with the Justin Bieber Doll being included in the drawing. If you do a google image search for "Justin Bieber Doll" it comes up rather early in the search results. I don't think JB was the subject of the satire and parody yet he gets smeared in the process (no pun), raising both personality and publicity rights issues for me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze, I'm sure there actually are toys that are dolls of Justin Bieber. Just like there are dolls that people can buy that are toys made in the likeness of numerous other musicians. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but what is the point you are trying to make? That we should not care because it is just a doll, or a drawing of a doll, and not the real person? The file contains his name so he becomes intimately involved in an issue he has no relation with. Is that even fair or just because he is a worldwide public figure, excepting perhaps for certain rainforest people, that makes it OK? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so you admit that there are actual toys that are dolls made of this person that exist, and therefore that there could be pictures of those dolls or paintings and artwork of same that also exist on the Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't plan to do much here, as this is not an honest process. Every page on Wikipedia is adorned by user generated Wikiproject logos and alert icons and such, but you don't host user generated art. Riiiiiiigggggggghhhhhht. I predict a party line vote among the closers, period. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a valid point. i think the distinction we are working with is that the acceptable user generated art is neutral in its emotional or editorial content, and is usually a clear, literal representation of something, or an icon that clearly portrays an idea. I think the problems with user generated art come when the images are open to interpretation, esp. if they dont have a clear use at the commons. Creating a work of art that is something "new" should probably not be hosted here if the work or artist is not known outside our community. I actually DR'd 2 original works of art that i created and posted, after considering the issues here, as they were new interpretations of the rainbow flag, not extant in the world, and have no obvious purpose at any project that i know of. Perhaps we should have a way to tag such original works, and if not used by a project within, say, a week, they are deleted. I know i really dont like using any of the user generated orginal art in articles, as thats blatant original research/synthesis, unless the artwork is an exact, clean copy of an object from history that we dont have a good photo of.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per INC, Cirt --A.Savin 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Musicarista (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal pictures.

Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ryder_Skye.jpg

[edit]

Ryder Skye.jpg 94.236.132.239 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Obviously a troll DR without any reason for deletion. Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.


File:Ryder Skye.jpg

Ryder Skye.jpg 188.254.230.210 15:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Speedy keep as no rationale given for deletion. Tabercil (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Warsaw Metro logo.gif

[edit]
Polski: Logo nie jest Creative Commons
English: logo is not Creative Commons
~ Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:412964 349992968356865 100000384944767 1097661 1032055051 o.jpg

[edit]

obviously a photograph of a photograph; provenance unknown DS (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Le Touquet-Paris-plage - CP - Le Royal Picardy.jpg

[edit]

Postcard from the late thirties it seems. How could this be a "travail personnel". The name of the photographer (Pecceu ?) is visible on the image. 195.169.141.54 06:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, this postcard is dated 1930, the Royal Picardy Hôtel has been built in 1929 and closed a few years after then distroyed after the second world war. I'm the author of this .jpeg file. Regards. AntonyB (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1930 so this photographer Pecceu could be born in 1900 and have died in 1975. You cannot use PD-Old and you are not the author, sorry. 195.169.141.54 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the architect fr:Pierre Drobecq died 1944;  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Two copyrights are being violated: The aritecht's one (d. in 1944) and the photographer's one Aimé Pecceu (d. in 1944 according to [3]). The file just can't be PD before 2015. PierreSelim (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Le Touquet-Paris-plage - CP - Le Royal Picardy.jpg

[edit]

The uploader claims to be the copyright holder which is obviously not true... Hektor (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LWE Commemorative Stamp.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Ww2censor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This 1984 USPS stamp [4] is copyright per Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. The uploader did not create the stamps and does not have any right to licence it freely.. Sreejith K (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I disagree with this move from a speedy to a deletion nomination because the image is an blatant copyvio so does qualify for speedy deletion. This process just prolongs the process unnecessarily but it still need to go. Ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: US Stamps published after December 31st, 1977 PierreSelim (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:恋かね.jpg

[edit]

and File:クロスランドおやべミニ鉄道.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright violations. One can easily be found on the web in a higher resolution: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B9%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E3%81%8A%E3%82%84%E3%81%B9%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8B%E9%89%84%E9%81%93.jpg; the other one is a typical small resoluted image from the web High Contrast (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Asamin01.jpg

[edit]

and other uploads by Wanabeer (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NAG Masto II.JPG

[edit]

copyright violation from http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/11/cortez-masto-bolsters-her-image-preserve-her-polit/ Gobonobo (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Margiri.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work of possible non-free work.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that work have no copy right it have been published in Iranian newspaper many times. the original paint belong to at least 120 years ago and this repaint is a copy of more than 60 years old. in Iran there is no copy right for such a paintings.

Deleted: If this version is 60 years old, then it is very likely still in copyright, as the rule is 50 years after the death of the author. It is possible that it is PD, but we would need to know when the author died.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rapportage veiligheidsindex 2007.pdf

[edit]

Its work of Gemeente Rotterdam, not "own work" by uploader. GeorgHH • talk   10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, copyvio - Vera (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mercadefam cañaveral (8).jpg

[edit]

Found bigger on many websites, doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Original Nevin Coat of Arms.jpg

[edit]

copyvio: [5] Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:David Cowan with Monzie Kerb Cairn.jpg

[edit]

copyvio [6] Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RAMA 111 (zespół muzyczny).pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BASZTA (Wikipedia).pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kate Nevin stone.jpg

[edit]

copyvio [7] Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baranowice.jpg

[edit]

No comfirmation that "This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication." (grabbed from website - based on real resolution and source) Bulwersator (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alatzas, Christos.JPG

[edit]

Bild eines Fakeartikel-Erstellers. Sehr wahrscheinlich Verstoss gegen Persönlichkeitsrechte. Gleiberg (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alberto Ruiz de Aguirre. Arquitecto.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alfabetizacion inicial.Wikipedia..pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ALFABETIZAÇÃO DIGITAL.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alfredo Muñoz. ABIBOO Architecture.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mixx.jpg

[edit]

No permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Orange-300x156.png

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Strasbourg StThomas13.jpg

[edit]

Erreur de chargement. Existe déjà sous le nom de St_Thomas_04 Ralph Hammann (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Strasbourg StThomas13.jpg

[edit]

Fait double emploi avec Strasbourg_StThomas79.jpg Ralph Hammann (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. INeverCry 05:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Foto jaru.jpg

[edit]

More specific licence and author information needed of all the images that are in this collage. At least one (the bottom right one) does have copyright/author information High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Qibla and Phi.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Topolná-náves.jpg

[edit]

Nahrán omylem palickap (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Samuel F. Lee at the 2011 AACTA Awards.jpg

[edit]

The user states that this is a file of himself, that he has taken it and uploaded it. This is technically unlikely, since the venue does not lend itself to an autotimer and a tripod. It is more likely that this is a commercial picture of the subject, acquired by him, and posted in breach of copyright. Timtrent (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Škoda Favorit Sport - InkScape Vector.jpg

[edit]

no usage thinkable alofok* 11:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Alofok as Speedy (reason=no usage thinkable) Sreejith K (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Perseids, 2010, California.jpg

[edit]

The subject is not what it pretends to be in the source per WP:REFDESK examination Brandmeister (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt at capturing Perseids; the source makes no false claims. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's too misleading, giving an illusion of the meteor shower (while in fact there are stars at long exposure) - the actual meteors are hardly visible. Not a good photo of the Perseids. Brandmeister (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. you may updat desciption and/or categories if desired. JuTa 07:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Genghis and Borte dividing appanages.jpg

[edit]

This image is actually a modern reproduction by a current artist, the source of this image includes "All rights reserved. Copyright 2012 © Exotic India" 184.76.225.106 06:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I upload original from museum website.--P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep : the image is exactly the same as the one found on the website of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where it is described as a work from ca. 1596. 2D copying does not generate any new copyright (see also Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). The fact that a modern artist sell reproduction of this work is not relevant in any way. BrightRaven (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Unsure This file has changed since nomination -- It is now the 'Possible alternate image' from the Met Museum; it was a reproduction by the artist, Kailash Raj. I have no objection to this new file (with the new file name and new description). I am glad to see the changes. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 04:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete old disputed version, which may be a modern reproduction by Exotic India, which sells new paintings based on the works of old masters. A different painting based on the original is copyrighted to the the modern artist and does not fall under Commons:2D copying. The new version from the museum is PD-art and should be retained. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Discussions regarding file name. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 01:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: but deleted 1st file version JuTa 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RAMA 111.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. JuTa 08:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BASZTA (1977).jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. JuTa 08:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Union Berlin fans.JPG

[edit]

Datei verstößt wahrscheinlich gegen de:Recht am eigenen Bild.--MfG Der Sepp (Diskussion) 08:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a real copyright problem. The German law says that if you want to publish a picture of a person (who is not known to the public) you have to get permission from that person.
The article above relates also to the dutch "Portretrecht" - maybe that's the same.--MfG Der Sepp (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got an answer from the uploading user: User talk:Señor Dan#File:Union Berlin fans.JPG. I think the file can be deleted.--MfG Der Sepp (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: but added {{Recht am eigenen Bild}} JuTa 08:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Doeberitzerheideplan.jpg

[edit]

weil es einen aktuelleren Plan gibt, den ich zur Verfügung stellen könnte. Annika MIlde (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe da keinen unbedingten Löschgrund. Ein neuer (aktuellerer) Plan kann jederzeit hochgeladen und eingebunden werden. Dann kann man immer noch überlegen, ob der Erhalt der jetzigen Karte sinnvoll ist. --Mazbln (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: JuTa 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Exkursion TH-Aachen 1 C.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the file should or must be in use in another project? What means: the file is unused? -- Haubi (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a criterion set in Commons:Project scope/Summary to define if the file is within or outside the project scope. BrightRaven (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people of the Mineralogical Faculty of Technical University Aachen have been there for inspecting the mine sites, specifically the mineralocical situation of the ironore. I could provide more fotos proofing this. -- Haubi (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of the people in the picture notable? BrightRaven (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable person is the elder women, Frau Prof. Dr. Doris Schachner, at that time: Leiterin des Instituts für Mineralogie, Petrographie und Lagerstättenlehre und seit 1958 auch Direktorin der Fakultät für Bergbau, Hüttenwesen und Geowissenschaften. -- Haubi (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: looks me realy out of scope. JuTa 08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Exkursion TH-Aachen 2 C.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the file should or must be in use in another project? What means: the file is unused? -- Haubi (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a criterion set in Commons:Project scope/Summary to define if the file is within or outside the project scope. BrightRaven (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: looks me realy out of scope. JuTa 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Exkursion TH-Aachen 3 C.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the file should or must be in use in another project? What means: the file is unused? -- Haubi (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a criterion set in Commons:Project scope/Summary to define if the file is within or outside the project scope. BrightRaven (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: looks me realy out of scope. JuTa 08:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alfonso Sánchez García Profesor Mosquito.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Transfering a comment from image page by the uploader User:Clasarce: soy la autora y considero que está mal editado, estoy de acuerdo con su borrado --JuTa 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: I am the author and I think this has been edited badly, I agree with deletion. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: looks me realy out of scope. JuTa 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mogadishu rebuilding.jpg

[edit]

As several editors on English Wikipedia have pointed out, this is not actually a photo of Mogadishu. (See en:Talk:Mogadishu/Archive 1#A fake photo and en:Talk:Mogadishu/Archive 1#Picture "Mog rebuilding".) It is in fact a photo of the Multimedia University's Melaka campus in Malaysia. It appears that the original (correctly described) publication is on http://shw.chapree.fotopages.com/4679733/MMU-Melaka-from-Lims-apartment-at-BBU.html, which is not under a free license. The user who posted it to world66.com (in addition to misrepresenting the subject of the photo) most likely did not have the right to issue a valid license for the photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion JuTa 08:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:V1-20040830.jpg

[edit]

"Photo © Roby 30 août 2004." is strange, it is a simulation/photomontage Bulwersator (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the fact that it is a simulation or photomontage merits deletion. - Asteuartw (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It struck me that it looks rather like a painting - there is certainly something artificial about it - but it is the clearest image of a V1 I could find, so it serves its purpose. Please do not delete. LynwoodF (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it is not a photo description "Photo © Roby 30 août 2004" suggests that this file was grabbed from random website and passed as "my photo" Bulwersator (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Roby, who has licensed it, claims copyright of the image. Has anyone challenged his right to do so in the seven years the image has been on Commons? LynwoodF (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, in this deletion request Bulwersator (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But who is the originator, if it is not User:Roby? We have as yet heard nothing from this hypothetical person. LynwoodF (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can't see why the originator would not be Roby. He may be the photomontage author, and that of the original pictures as well. He says he holds copyright on the image, was an experimented Commons user and a French WP admin from 2006 to 2009, so he probably knew what he did (Note that he seems to be inactive now). Unless there is more solid proof that he's not the author of that image, I think that deletion request shall be considered irrelevant. Or you would have to request deletion of every photomontage on Commons. Akela NDE (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I think it is time I voted formally. LynwoodF (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Yes it's probably CGI but it's a good ilustration. Super Slush 16 May 2012

Deleted: cpvio from http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/V1.html - compare [8] souc from 2001. JuTa 08:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Projet mesurestableaugraph.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File belongs to a series I put in Category:Unidentified biology experiments. I'd appreciate if someone could find out what kind of experiment this is for better categorization. In my opinion all these file belonging together should be kept or deleted together. Same for this file.--Funfood ␌ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This table is really useless without more information, e.g. about the circumstances of the experiment, information that probably can only be provided by the uploader. Maybe the uploader received an email notification and will come only to tell more. If not, this file will never have any educational value. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. JuTa 10:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Projet-BM.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Projet_mesurestableaugraph.pdf.--Funfood ␌ 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. JuTa 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Foto opo.jpg

[edit]

More specific licence and author information needed of all the images that are in this collage. High Contrast (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. JuTa 10:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aharonian-avetis.jpg

[edit]

Lacks adequate license information (original author, date of publication and source). Could not achieve PD by age because the portrayed man seems to be died at 1940s Bestiasonica (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unknown date, unknown source JuTa 10:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cassubia1238 Logo Sejm.png

[edit]

We already have this file at File:Logo of the Sejm of Poland.png ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There are several images that are double on the wikimedia commons. Furthermore the image that you have mentioned is much smaller then the one that I've created. No need for deletion in my opinion. Cassubia1238 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what if yours is bigger. They're both PNGs, you should have just uploaded it over the current file. We don't need two of it, especially of the same format. Fry1989 eh? 20:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what will happen if there is a big and a small version of the file? Nothing, exactly. Deleting the file is a rather clumsy solution in my opinion. Edit: I've uploaded another version of the file. So I don't really mind if one of them gets deleted. Cassubia1238 (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand do you. We do not need two files in the same format. You should have just uploaded your File:Cassubia1238 Logo Sejm.png over File:Logo of the Sejm of Poland.png, instead of uploading seperately. Also, your new file is not a true SVG, so I have also nominated that for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm fully aware of your concerns in this case. Nevertheless, I'd rather like to see the part in the rules where your suggestions are mentioned than your unnecessary repetitions. Cassubia1238 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rule, it's common sense. If there is a PNG of something, and you have a new, bigger, or better version of that thing also in PNG format, you upload your new version over it, you don't upload it seperately and cause a duplication problem. You also need to stop puting your username in your file's names. That is highly discouraged. Fry1989 eh? 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting that the way I've uploaded the file is not against the rules. Since we both can agree on that, your first reason for a deletion ("We already have this file...") is invalid. Just like you can't jail someone who is innocent, you can't delete a file that that is not violating the rules. I find it lovely that you obviously have realized this failure and go on about the name of my file. So, two questions for you: 1. Is it against the rules? 2. Please, enlighten us, why is it "highly discouraged"? Sure, it's a bit unusual, but if you will search here for "logo sejm" it's the first result. The only thing helpful so far was the statement of Pieter Kuiper. @ Pieter Kuiper, Concerning the watermark you are right. That has nothing to do on a logo. Thanks. Edit: Removed the watermark. Cassubia1238 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was against the rules, so let's the that straight. Second, it is advised and generally considered common sense to upload over if you have a file in the same format. Third, it IS against the guidelines to put your user name in the name of your file, unless that file directly relates to you. You really need to learn more about Commons and how we do things before you get saucy with me. Fry1989 eh? 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the watermark. I have now uploaded your high-resolurtion version on top of the other file, giving credit to you in the author field. This file should now be deleted because it is an exact duplicate. I hope this is a satisfactory solution. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: but redirected to the other file. JuTa 10:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baiser de Brâncusi D22.jpg

[edit]

Is Freedom of panorama applicable? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you think it must be deleted, please delete it : Brâncusi died 1957 ; a question : who could complain for copyright in this case ? so far I know, Brâncusi had no children and was not married ? Martin Greslou (talk) 9:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: but undelete 2028 JuTa 10:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mogenskbh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Works by a Danish artist so likely in Denmark. Only non-commercial FOP for artworks in Denmark. The last one has a strangely filled in {{Information}} field: the uploader listed as author and a web site is listed as source. It is also a derivative work.

Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I´m sorry for the amateurish upload. Did my best, but i´m new here and is still learning. All pictures i´ve uploadet here on wiki are: Free of use, anywhere by anyone. I´m the photografer and have also donated some of the pictures to the artist´s (who I know) website (tejnibyen.dk) Tejn will confirm that, if nececery, via his email (tejnibyen@hotmail.com) If the picture is better placed anywhere else, I reques for help placing it in the right category. Greetings 37.96.198.226 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC) greetings Mogenskbh (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-I did not think that there were copyright on street art, done without permission, by street artists, in public areas, but it should be no problem: This picture is aproved by the artist, witch can be confirmed as written above. Normally it would be hard to get permission from a person inkognito, so my guess is that this is one of very few street art pictures with permission from the original (typicaly unknown) artist. Greetings 37.96.198.226 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no COM:OTRS confimation yet. JuTa 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Big cats

[edit]

Derivative work of four images, but only one of them (a CC-BY image) is sourced. Two of the other images are claimed to be {{PD-USGov}}, so, assuming that the claim is correct, there is no copyvio, although we really need a source. The fourth image is claimed to be a "ShareAlike" image. Not sure if it is an Attribution-ShareAlike image or a plain ShareAlike image. In the former case, it is a copyright violation because the photographer isn't credited. In the latter case, it is a copyright violation because CC-SA 1.0 is incompatible with CC-BY 2.0 (one licence says, I believe, that you mustn't require attribution for derivative works while the other one says that you must require attribution for derivative works).

Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the first three are:
Based on this page, I believe that the last one is a previous version of File:Leopard.jpg which was deleted for being unsourced. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: monimum 1 file with unclear source and liicense JuTa 10:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The_Iranian_National_Museum_Of_Medical_Sciences_History,_Tehran;_Iran_(By_Dr._Maziar_Ashrafian_Bonab)_(4).JPG

[edit]

Out of scope, not encyclopediac, there are lots of better images about w:The National Museum of Medical Sciences History (Iran) and this image is not needed. AMERICOPHILE 12:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is part of the history of the museum, and should be kept here.

Kept: As per scope, A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose Captain-tucker (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:The Iranian National Museum Of Medical Sciences History, Tehran; Iran (By Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab) (4).JPG

Not in use anymore, out of project scope. Americophile 22:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. --JuTa 10:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The_Iranian_National_Museum_Of_Medical_Sciences_History,_Tehran;_Iran_(By_Dr._Maziar_Ashrafian_Bonab)_(14).jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, not encyclopediac, there are lots of better images about w:The National Museum of Medical Sciences History (Iran) and this image is not needed. AMERICOPHILE 12:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is part of the history of the museum, and should be kept here.

Kept: As per scope, A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose Captain-tucker (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:The Iranian National Museum Of Medical Sciences History, Tehran; Iran (By Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab) (14).jpg

Not in use anymore, out of project scope. Americophile 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. --JuTa 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/03/28&oldid=75233385"