Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Jagdhaus_Lageplan_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that the drawing would be freely licensed. Eleassar (t/p) 09:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As per nom and as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that this painting would be freely licensed. Eleassar (t/p) 10:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As per nom and uploader request as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a copyrighted logo, the shapes do not look simple enough to me to qualify for public domain status. Hydriz (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 08:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE as depicted object is out of focus. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, out of focus poor quality own penis snapshot -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
by mistake uplord,sorry. Shimoyamatedo-ri (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Upload mistake; deletion promptly requested by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
incomplete version IlluScientia (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader req deletion of recently uploaded unused file. INeverCry 22:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Israel aguillon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Test files/unused personal files.
Savhñ 16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: and no licens at all. JuTa 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
no educational purpose. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
personal photo. No educational purpose. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom; also poor quality. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Private picture, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 16:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ich, der Autor des Werkes, möchte das dieses Bild gelöscht wird. JohannesErwinEugen.R (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is the best photo we have about Deutz D 8005. The photo is here more then 2 months and is used. Free licences are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ich möchte das diese Datei gelöscht wird. JohannesErwinEugen.R (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Keine ausreichenden Lizenzinformationen!
- Keep - the image has no license information, because you just deleted it 2 minutes before your latest edit (see image history). I reverted your deletion, please follow Commons guidelines and the CC-license rules. GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous DR and GermanJoe. Also per File:D 2505.jpg. Tm (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept - fine image, no problem with the license, free license not revocable. --Denniss (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The owner of the vehicle wishes the deletion of the file. I am not the copyright owner any more. JohannesErwinEugen.R (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
kept: You cannot revoce a cc-license and this file is perfectly fine. You nominated it for the third time. If you nominate it again you will be blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Image appears to be taken from Aston Martin Racing's Facebook page, with no information on the licensing of the image. https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/430123_10151672804457248_1517323152_n.jpg The359 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
l'image a un copyright et la personne qui a versé cette image n'est pas l'auteur de la photo Olivier tanguy (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Cette image à été inséré sur Wikimedia pour permettre aux personnes se renseignant sur l'ERIKA de pouvoir voir à quoi ressemblait le navire dans son ensemble. En effet, la page "Erika (pétrolier)" ne montre absolument aucune image du navire, ni avant, ni pendant son naufrage. Le fait de supprimer cette image empêcherait les "visiteurs" de la page de voir une image du navire. Jusqu'à l'ajout de cette image le 25 juin 2013, l'unique illustration de la page était une carte indiquant le niveau de pollution du littoral suite au naufrage. [User:Lev. Anthony]] 00:29, 26 june 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to violate copyright of others Denniss (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ich, der Urheber dieses Werkes, möchte das dieses Bild gelöscht wird. JohannesErwinEugen.R (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is the best photo we have about D 2505. The photo is here more then 2 months and is used. Free licences are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Keine Quell- oder Lizenzinformationen. JohannesErwinEugen.R (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - per last request. I reverted your deletion of image and license information. Reasons for deletion should be discussed here before changes to the image. GermanJoe (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous DR and GermanJoe. Also per File:Deutz D 8005 A.jpg. Tm (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
ich möchte einfach das diese Datei gelöscht wird, ohne große Diskussion! Das ist es, was mich auf wikimedia commons so ärgert!
Kept - fine image, no problem with the license, free license not revocable. --Denniss (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
May potentially be construed as child pornography. Recommend speedy (but not a valid speedy criterion) for legal protection. Deryck Chan (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Questionable if this falls into scope. Inadequete description Bawolff (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE and of too low quality to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
After today identifying 10 more uploads from 2012 as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that this remaining file would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP, considering also upload behaviour = +25 copyvios/otherwise deleted files) can't be believed either. Gunnex (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nominating also File:Argentino de San Carlos - Fútbol (Reinaguración del Estadio 12 de Enero).jpg. Gunnex (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Per comment on File talk:Brunsvigia marginata ibiblio org PDMary Sue Ittner.png. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Per comment on File talk:Brunsvigia orientalis Blaetter ibiblio org PDMary Sue Ittner.png. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is in scope. Bawolff (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Non-free design. Eleassar (t/p) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the author gave permission for this photo. It isn't a photo that can't be replaced though with freely-licenced alternatives as a search of airliners.net for "Crossair Europe" and Category:Aviation photographs by photographer will show. russavia (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
naruszenie praw autorskich (nieodpowiednia licencja) LoMit (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- PD-textlogo Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per pd-textlogo. INeverCry 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Á as no license (no license). There is a {{PD-art}} license, which seems to be obviously wrong. JuTa 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
very low quality, no description, no use on wikipedias possible. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No use for any Wikipedia. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No use for any Wikipedia. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No use for any Wikipedia. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hedwig in Washington as no license (no license). There is a license ({{Anonymous work}}. But according the description the image was made in 1949, which is not 70 years ago. JuTa 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Was initialy tagged as no license There is a license, but its not clear if the image was made by an US agenycy employee and the given license {{PD-USGov}} applies. JuTa 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
imho out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
unknown location, no use for any Wikipedia. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Text file. Not needed as image. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A derivative work of copyrighted sculpture "Imatran Impi" (1972) by Taisto Martiskainen (1943–1982). Not in public domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Probably can be uploaded to the Finnish Wikipedia as a fair-use image. Apalsola t • c 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I uploaded the file to the Finnish Wikipedia as Imatran Impi.jpg. ––Apalsola t • c 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
porque es mentira y deseo quitar mi imagen de la red Jhanklo (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Costa Rica: Commons:Fop#Costa_Rica BrightRaven (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Image is claimed to have been licenced by author, yet no OTRS record is on file. In addition, image is shown at [1] with a restrictive licence. Uploader has a "photograph" of Josef Kote at File:Josef Kote 1.jpg which is up for Speedy deletion for being a copyright violation. Suspicion of serial copyright infringment is reasonable assumption based on remaining file not yet up for deletion File:Josef Kote Brooklyn & Manhattan Bridge 48x60 Original Acrylic on Canvas (2013).jpg is copied directly from [2] Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.blazing.com/uploads/5/2/2/2/5222452/6999436.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is claimed to have been licenced by author, yet no OTRS record is on file. Image is shown at [3] under a "All rights reserved" copyright restriction. All 3 files by same uploader are being challenged as copyright violations as it is clear that they do not have the authority to make such a copyright release. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- See Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josef-Kote 7600 445.jpg for further evidence of copyright violation. Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Por no poseer derechos de autor 200.118.88.141 03:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation Alejandro Cubillos (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Additional file:
Images show a presumably copyrighted karaoke program, which is the central feature of the images and thus does not qualify as de minimis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused SVG render copy of http://ka.stadtwiki.net/images/thumb/b/b4/Wappen_Kronau.svg/572px-Wappen_Kronau.svg.png. Replaced by File:Wappen Kronau.svg Perhelion (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work . HombreDHojalata.talk 10:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why PD? The photo is from ~1925. Ralf Roleček 06:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The uploader cannot be identically with the photographer in 1919. It is not an own work. Stefan Bellini (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not relevant or helpful to anything Rcsprinter123 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete another penis Eak86
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
1932 building; no evidence that it is free per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 11:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE due to technical qualirty, depicted object is blurry. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Blurry snapshot without evidence of compensating uniqueness nor importance. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Appears at http://news.psu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/threshold-992/public/Aerials%2011-8-2012%2014x6.5.jpg ( http://news.psu.edu/story/268824/2013/03/15/health-and-medicine/penn-state-hershey-preparing-change-says-medical-centers ) Seems unlikely uploader actually owns copyright to image Bawolff (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Fixertool (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The file originated on de.wiki. Uploaded on 14 June 2005. There, the uploader stated that the original photographer was Volker Krummel. As that seems to be someone different than the original uploader, we don't actually have the copyright holder's permission to host the file here. I am deleting the copy on en.wiki as an F8. Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The claim that this is own work is dubious. The exif data is missing. The resolution is low. Eleassar (t/p) 10:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The file is blank Cal Umbra (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Text file. Not needed as image. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
very doubtfull own work as stated - compare this google image search result. JuTa 21:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
looks pretty much like out of scope. JuTa 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
File:This is the official logo of the law firm of-Goodwin & Howard, P-A-, a small yet powerful group of attorneys dedicated to excellent client services, top drawer legal advice, creating excellence in litigation and enjoyin 2013-06-25 01-50.jpg
[edit]
non-simple logo. Seems unlikely that the law firm in question actually is releasing it cc-by-sa Bawolff (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Croatia, only works permanently on display are free. This was a temporary installation. Eleassar (t/p) 09:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, the following file: File:Uobicajeni setaci Rijeka 0608 2.JPG. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
some homepage picture, out of project scope, private picture Motopark (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
some homepage picture, personal picture Motopark (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no context information -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
some homepage picture, out of project scope, private picture Motopark (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a photographic reproduction of a 2D work of art. The uploader nowhere claims authorship of the original painting. Infact it looks more like an improvised poster with the text at bottom right looking like a printed one. The signatures of the painter are there at the bottom right corner but are illegible. Unused. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo shows a column of the Črni Kal Viaduct, which is one of its distinguishing elements. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, it is not free for Commons. This has already been discussed here. Eleassar (t/p) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The columns have been considered copyrighted elements also in this undeletion discussion. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The same goes for File:Črni Kal viaduct at night (7554112880).jpg: it shows architecture that is still copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be a test of mobile upload? Bawolff (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Delete Deryck Chan (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot of a television screen, which makes me doubt it is the author's own work. Bawolff (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coats of arms of Pula
[edit]No rationale why these coats of arms would be free / per the same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb Pirana.svg. The blason is free, but the specific depiction is not.
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 09:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Monument of Germogen
[edit]Derivative of modern sculpture erected in 2013. There is no Panorama Freedom in Russia.
- File:Monument of Germogen 1.JPG
- File:Monument of Germogen 2.JPG
- File:Monument of Germogen 3.JPG
- File:Monument of Germogen 4.JPG
A.Savin 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This user's uploads are suspicious. They are oddly small, weirdly squeezed and askew, collages with no copyrights clarity of all images, 2D derivations and of places (like inside the Parliament) where access is for rare people and that too with a camera. I dont think the user owns these images. No metadata. Also user has a history of proven copyvios. (Check talk page history.)
- File:Rooplo Kolhi.jpg
- File:Islands sindh sold.jpg
- File:Snprally.jpg
- File:Sindhkarokai.gif
- File:Jsmm protest.JPG
- File:Palijo adabi sangat.JPG
- File:Halani protest sindh tv.JPG
- File:Fishermensindh.JPG
- File:Sindh asmb.jpg
- File:Sindhitvbanned.jpg
- File:Sindhtvprotest.jpg
- File:Mumtaz bhutto sindh.jpg
- File:Jsmm protest.jpg
- File:SDF sindh.jpg
- File:Protestforsindhtv.jpg
- File:Protest Sea.jpg
- File:Sukkur rally.jpg
- File:Sindh village.jpg
- File:Jsqm leader.JPG
- File:Jsqm leaders.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Culture project
[edit]Paintings of a still alive painter (en:Rusudan Petviashvili). Needs verification through COM:OTRS.
- File:Rusudan with Margaret.jpg
- File:Rusudan.28.JPG
- File:Русудан и Маргарет.jpg
- File:Rusudan.12.JPG
- File:Rusudan.20.JPG
- File:Rusudan.27.JPG
- File:Rusudan.15.JPG
- File:Rusudan.16.JPG
- File:Rusudan.07.JPG
- File:Rusudan.10.JPG
- File:Rusudan.06.JPG
- File:Rusudan.05.JPG
- File:Rusudan.02.JPG
- File:Rusudan.04.JPG
JuTa 17:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Culture project (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document, logo and promo photo of company of questionable notability.
- File:Уманьпиво.jpg
- File:Сушия.pdf
- File:Ковальская.pdf
- File:Интертелеком.pdf
- File:Брв.pdf
- File:Скайвел.png
- File:Победа Сisco.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EstudiantesFotografias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Estadio de Sportivo Italiano.jpg
- File:Estadio de Barracas Central.jpg
- File:Estadio La Quema de Acassuso.jpg
- File:Estadio San Telmo Isla Maciel.jpg
- File:Palcoscaseros.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- No entiendo porque son borradas. Las fotos son modificadas virtualmente para mejorar la visión ya que son muy oscuras y de mala calidad. EstudiantesFotografias (discusión) 14:21, 26 Junio 2013 (UTC)
- These appear to be from different types of cameras. Some look like screenshots. Jonathunder (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
But, for example File:Estadio La Quema de Acassuso.jpg. Do you think that it is a screenshots? I edit the photo with a aplication, The photo is as being of low quality. EstudiantesFotografias (discusión) 16:15, 29 Junio 2013 (UTC)
- The main question is: Did you, User:EstudiantesFotografias, has taken this photo (did you press the trigger) or did you not? As you indicated a source (in the above example: http://www.clubacassuso.com.ar), apparently not. So, whatever you have done with this photo ("I edit the photo with a aplication"), the copyright remains to the person who effectivly made this photo. See COM:DW/Commons:Trabajos derivados for details. To solve this, we need source/author and a permission from this author granted via COM:OTRS. Gunnex (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
After today identifying 3 more uploads from 2011 as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP, considering also upload behaviour = +30 copyvios/otherwise deleted files) can't be believed either.
- File:Portón Nueva Chicago-Mataderos.jpg
- File:Chicago en San Lorenzo.jpg
- File:Pintada centenario Nueva Chicago.jpg
- File:Entrenamiento Nueva Chicago.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hudson de Jesus Peixoto (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Promo.
- File:Apresentação ao vivo da banda VERDADE RELATADA.jpg
- File:Grupo VERDADE RELATADA.jpg
- File:Nego Hud'son.jpg
- File:Verdade relatada.jpg
- File:Cledê.jpg
- File:Lidhy 7.jpg
- File:Digão.jpg
- File:Novo logo vr.jpg
- File:VERDADE RELATADA Album "Verdade Relatada Apesar do Caos Cristo é Tudo!".jpg
- File:VERDADE RELATADA Album "A melhor forma de defesa é o ataque".jpg
- File:VERDADE RELATADA Album "A minha missão, A minha Visão.".jpg
Savhñ 15:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juliboglio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, considering also - per COM:PRP - upload behaviour (around 40 copyvios/otherwise deleted files). Cropped from unknown source (in doubt, the uploader should be able to upload the originals).
Gunnex (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unidentified people playing table tennis in unknown location. out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laichanhong (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own work claimed, 6 different cameras used. Very likely not own work. All other files uploaded are not own work but taken from the school's webpages. (Tagged no source)
- File:TFSG Group Scarf.jpg
- File:TFSG Guild Chapter.JPG
- File:2004 Xianghao President Scout Award.JPG
- File:TFSG Tanglin.jpg
- File:TFSG Joanne PSA.jpg
- File:MP Gan Kim Yong 40th Campfire.JPG
- File:FOX Picture 035.jpg
- File:TFSG group.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt own work. Seems like M.Okai is the uploader (see peacock description on userpage)
- File:M Okai.jpg
- File:Michel Okai 1.jpg
- File:H3.jpg
- File:Michel Okai image.jpg
- File:City of Lima, photo from Universidad San Martin de porres.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
spam / out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This image is incorrect, as noted at wikipedia:File_talk:Collection_Classes.jpg. It's low quality, and misleading. LFaraone (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wesha as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Snapshot of copyrighted sales brochure (http://www.wolfammo.ru/) -- note the phone number at the bottom of the page.
but I think it fulfills de minimis cause just the pic of the building is copyrighted Sanandros (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted derivatives of non-free content are prohibited on Commons. -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wesha as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Snapshot of copyrighted sales brochure (http://www.wolfammo.ru/) -- note the phone number at the bottom of the page.
The pic could be already PD Sanandros (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality slide, too much tilt, two other alternatives are in Cat:Houses in Surry Hills, NSW. Sardaka (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Test file with lacking pages and low quality, replaced by File:Le confessioni di Lev Tolstoj.djvu Federicor (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
_-_Jagdhaus_Lageplan_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Jagdhaus_Lageplan_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No encyclopedic use. article deleted in de-wp Hyperdieter (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
_-_Jagdhaus_Lageplan_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
_-_Jagdhaus_Lageplan_.jpg){kind=link}
unclear what it depicts, non notable, non-educational, possibly copyvio as derivative work of the poster AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Poster is for Document Freedom Day, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Nandhp 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the poster is a derivative of the photograph which is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (according to said poster). (De minimis may apply). Jean-Fred (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, it has the NC-restriction, which makes it not suitable for commons and as the poster is in the centre of the image, it's not a de minimis case --> delete --Isderion (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, the poster is a derivative of the photograph which is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (according to said poster). (De minimis may apply). Jean-Fred (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uninteresting and fuzzy picture, and most importantly not educational. Delete ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per statements above. No reason to keep. McZusatz (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope (cf Commons:Galleries). Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 19:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- ? Not realy a sufficient justification --Korrekturen (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete not gallery Motopark (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Frank Weidauer was headmaster of Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium from 1974 to 1989. Since he has a WP:DE article and the school has a WP:EN article, our requirement for notability is probably satisfied. As a collection of images of a notable person, this qualifies as an acceptable gallery.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Behalten - The pictures are from our very private family album. The only reason is: on the Wikipedia-Site "Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium" Stuttgart are all the former directors with a link to a Wikipedia article. The same should be possible for the famous director Frank Weidauer.
- QED: A clear collision of interests and additionally all pictures are very likely not of the uploader's origin. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 21:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You can erase everything if that gets you satisfaction. Of course the photos are not "of the uploaders origin", I suppose the photographer of 1950 is not longer in this world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.weidauer (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27. Jun. 2013 (UTC)
Behalten - Frank Weidauer war für das Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium eine sehr wichtige und bemerkenswerte Persönlichkeit mit Vorbildfunktion. Dr.E.Hottenroth
- Delete Update: WP:DE article was deleted, four of five pics were already deleted and the remaining still has an ongoing discussion. No need to keep the "gallery". -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty gallery. INeverCry (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, Hahn jr. died in 1953. Tekstman (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Given a CC license by the party the SDAP merged into: the PvdA. - Vera (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which is honorable, and would be ok if Albert Hahn jr. had not signed the poster, which makes him the rightful copyright owner. Tekstman (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD now. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The date of creation of this postcard/photograph therein is not clear and not available on the internet. The file is unused and should be deleted as per COM:PCP. Rahul Bott (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hi
This image is available in internet. I have collected from below link and provided as reference of this link to image.
http://www.stamps-auction.com/pics/k3837.jpg
Please do the needful.
Dcmpuri (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Available on internet != freely licensed FASTILY 07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo d'un parti politique. Doit être déplacé vers wikipedia.org Omondi (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment could be PD-ineligible, not sure if the glass effect is eligible. darkweasel94 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not more complex than Best Western logo, imho, so {{PD-textlogo}} should apply. BrightRaven (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The image depicts a non-free souvenir. Eleassar (t/p) 09:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- That souvenir is made more than 120 years before (in family for last 4 generations). I assume that both artwork (handicraft) and design are today public domain, and I put my photograph of it under cc-by-sa-3.0. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, it is good enough for me. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Croatia, only works permanently on display are free. This was a temporary installation. Eleassar (t/p) 10:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per Kubura's message at my talk page, the image may be a reproduction of an old depiction that is not copyrighted anymore. In my opinion, it is a still-copyrighted derived work of this stained glass. In addition, the image also appears at this site. I guess the one at Commons is the original, but it is hard to say for sure because the exif data is missing. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please see hr:Sveti_Vid, File:Sveti Vid stendarac 180408.jpg this is original for File:Rijeka Korzo Dani Sv Vida 090610 2.jpg. You can not find somewhere on the net some relatively new depiction of some old saint (over 15 centuries), and therefore with lot of depictions in public domain, and just ascertain that this depicition is based on some new (made maybe even after creation of flag?) but not on the old. It's ridiculous.
- Please check Foto: ROBERTA F. / WIKIPEDIA, daily newspaper with highest circulation in Croatia (Večernji list) is using photograps of user User:Roberta F. and that photo also does not have EXIF, but here photo is signed. If not, you would guess autorship of user with over 5.000 free photos on commons?
- Again, flags on photo are not covered by copyright, and additionally, even if copyrightable, this photo can be used by provisions of Article 89. of Croatian Law on autorship (USE OF COPYRIGHT WORKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC Article 89 (1) It shall be permitted, to the extent necessary for informing the public on current events by press, radio or television, to reproduce, to distribute and to communicate to the public: 1. works that are part of current event that is being reported on, provided that the work is used to the extent justified by the purpose and manner of reporting on current events.)
- Choose whichever reason you want, but to me seems there exist no reason to delete this photo. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It still seems like a relatively new and as such copyrighted derivative work of an old relief. There is no reason to believe otherwise. There is also no reason why flags would not be covered by copyright, and article 89 does not allow for the reusage of the file for every purpose. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- What seem or doesn't seem is not relevant, or at least that should not be relevant, just what is should be relevant. I was in a room with flags 100 and 200 years old (some even more), and they seemed quite in a good shape. Flags are covered by copyright, I do not see why they wouldn't be, where you get that? I admit that Article 89 is not allowable on commons, just on other Wikimedia projects with appropriate edp. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Croatia for temporary installations FASTILY 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This is neither Original Cover Flow nor MacOS X Screenshot 84.133.65.10 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep yes you are right. Did anyone claim it was? If it were, that would be more problematic. darkweasel94 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see now that some German-language projects use it to illustrate cover flow in general, even on pages about OS X in particular. I suggest you discuss that on those projects; the file is in scope for Commons. darkweasel94 22:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use. article deleted in de-wp Hyperdieter (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Der Artikel dazu ist in Arbeit. Ich werde hier im Mentorenprogramm betreut. Warum sollen die Fotos zum Artikel gelöscht werden??? Das Urheberrecht dazu habe ich! Ich habe die Fotos selber erstellt. --Top-deluxe1 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not own work of the uploader as stated. Its also unclear if a relavtive of the uploader made this photo, that {{PD-heirs}} could apply. JuTa 20:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Juta, As I mentioned previously, The person in the picture is my grandphader. The potogrph belongs to our family and in our power, is an old photograph (1,926).
We will change the licence as you comment. Thank You. Javier Mendez
- Do you know who shot this foto and what were his/her lifespan? That would be importat to decide if the foto could be {{PD-old}} or not. Was the fotografer a relevant of you? Only in this case the heirs-license is correct. regards --JuTa 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Juta, I dont know who shot the picture, the picture has 87 years old, the photographer is not relevant, the original photograph are in our family for all of this time, please reconsiders to leave the asking to delete this picture, or let me know what i need to change about license, i dont undertand well Javier Mendez
- Hi, I dont think there is very much more you can do. Lets wait what another admin will decide in this case. I will not decide it because I raised the deletion request. --JuTa 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons. FASTILY 07:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
File was nominated for speedy deletion on June 9, 2011 by Ianusius with the rationale "Unbrauchbar, weil nur eingebundenes Bitmap/Rastergrafik" (which Google translate gives as "Useless because only inline Bitmap / Raster Graphics"). I disagree with the nomination, as it is 1: formatted as an SVG and thus in accordance with Commons:Transition to SVG (the size is a result of it having 100 layers to keep the map accurate) and 2: the file is too new to be well known and used (only 4 days old as of the time of the Speedy nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as outlined above. Note to Ianusius: Please notify the creator when you nominate a file for speedy deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Image shows inaccurate information. 180.194.30.238 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is trash. Embedding bitmaps graphics inside SVG gains no advantage over the original. It's only larger in file size and otherwise an exact duplicate. This version should be deleted and the image redrawn as a real SVG instead. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be possible to upload one over the file? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is possible. But until then we could just delete this file, since it has no benefits compared to the original PNG. Thats not the intended use for SVG. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be possible to upload one over the file? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I find this to be an extremely informative graphic, and unless we can find a graphic that is more informative, it should not be deleted.
- We have a PNG with exactly the same content. There is no need to wrap a PNG directly inside SVG. This is a waste of resources, since it has not advantage to include a bitmap graphic inside a vector graphic format, without actual vectorization of the content. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 07:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: the purpose of having SVG files on Commons is to provide vector images - this image is merely a raster graphic within an SVG file. Until it is replaced by an actual vector image, I would support deletion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 02:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per above -Iketsi (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I too find this to be an extremely informative and interesting graphic. The map provides me with information that I have found no where else. It should not be deleted.
- Delete All layers seem to be dumped haphazardly above each other. Takes forever to load, doesn't look like an SVG. Joe Schmedley (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or create a real vector image of File:Unlabeled Renatto Luschan Skin color map.png. Nageh (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Its a clear chart , whats wrong with it? 82.46.68.216 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is a copy of the same PNG file. It has no advantage over the existing PNG, since it is not an actual vector graphic. Instead it is this PNG stored as an image inside the SVG. (Larger filesize, harder to render, same content) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete since it is mostly an SVG-wrapped copy if the existing PNG file, as already has been pointed out. --CyRoXX (?) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Untill a new o ne is made keep it? Renato Ferreira da Rocha (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Redesigned image, please remove warning--A7N8X (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- please, you can delete my old versions of this file (the versions in question are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)? --A7N8X (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the old revisions, perhaps (if necessary). The current one is good. Could a closer crop be given at the top though? The blank space at the top is a bit much. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes! you can do! done!--A7N8X (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the map is informative and sourced. It is definitely better than any other distribution maps in the commons that would have to be used if this one were deleted. --Vihelik (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely no sense in deleting the image as it doesn't save recources, to delete ist. A deleted image is still on the server, but only administrators can look at it. --Kersti (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Informative and useful and not misleading because it is sourced. Kanatonian (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with all the others, it's informative, sourced, interesting, and the file format is beside the point really. DNForever
- There is however no reason to keep a 1:1 duplicate of the PNG version. It's not a vector graphic as SVG should be. It is merely an SVG wrapped around this PNG, which has no advantage at all. Instead it is unnecessarily larger in file size, isn't as reusable and can cause problems at different resolutions. Why keep something that does not provide any additional knowledge or quality over an already existing image or format which is superior? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In the meantime a proper svg has been uploaded into this filename. 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The image has already been nominated because of its quality; now I would suggest, that it should be deleted, because it presents outdated and inaccurate information. It is based on an anthropological study of an Italian geographer from "prior to 1940", so from a time when the scientific view on "race" and similiar issues was wuite different from today's, not to mention, that i t was the time of the Italian fascism (I am not sure what the exact year of the study is though). And besides, for example it uses the same colour for parts of Europe and China and southeast Asia, which shows how inaccurate it is. In conclusion - it might only be of use in an article regarding the history of antropology or Biasutti, but not as a modern scientific source of information in the way it is used in numerious aritlces. P.S. In case of deletion it would have to apply to the png file as well. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Files are never deleted on Commons because they are incorrect, not NPOV or outdated, because Wikipedia policies do not apply to Wikimedia Commons (plus, different language Wikipedia projects have separate policies anyway, and Commons serves more than just the one). We have many other files on Commons that are "inaccurate" or "extremely POV", however keep in mind that Commons is a repository of free-license content, and not a holy grail of information. The only valid reason for deleting this file as I can see would be quality-related (it still appears to be a raster image in an SVG file). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as for the informational argument, because informing about what was believed "prior to 1940" is totally educational - but Delete because of quality issues - this seems to be the result of tracing with Inkscape and then redundantly overlaying the original image. This really, really should be redone as a proper svg, because this is worse than a png. darkweasel94 22:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Factual inaccuracy is not a valid reason to delete a file on Commons. Also, this file is in use on many other projects. Those uses need to be replaced before this file can be considered for deletion on grounds of poor quality and/or being superseded. -FASTILY 07:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful this is own work of the uploader. The exif data is missing, the resolution is low, and there is evidence of past copyvios on the user's talk page.
* File:Lucijamarina.JPG
* File:Lukakoper.jpg
* File:Wallst142.jpg
* File:Wallst14occupy.jpg
* File:Koperisland.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Based on File:Ankaran.jpg, which does have the exif, I think that only the last two files are actually questionable. Both of them state 'permission granted', but the permission has not been confirmed through COM:OTRS yet. I'm assuming good faith and withdrawing the nomination for the rest of the files. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/viewtopic.php?t=15126 [4]
Converted by me to DR, as there is some possibility that the photography is already in the public domain, as the depicted died in 1930s. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Esa foto proviene de la portada de este libro por lo que me hce presumir que esta en derecho.--Veronidae (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 21:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Work by Željko Heimer, no OTRS-confirmed permission. Similar case as Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer.
- File:Benkovac.gif
- File:Biograd-na-moru.gif
- File:Buje.gif
- File:Buzet.gif
- File:Cres.gif
- File:Crikvenica.gif
- File:Knin (grb).gif
- File:Kraljevica.gif
- File:Krk.gif
- File:Labin.gif
- File:Mali-losinj.gif
- File:Nin.gif
- File:Opatija.gif
- File:Pag.gif
- File:Pazin.gif
- File:Porec.gif
- File:Punat (grb).gif
- File:Rab.gif
- File:Rijeka.png
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Other versions:
Eleassar (t/p) 07:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We can use Template:PD-Croatia-exempt for the files? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:COA, there is no such thing as an "official CoA (drawing)" in heraldics. Per the same page, "Saying that the CoA definition is public domain does not mean that a given representation is, nor that derivative works are not possible. Generally speaking, the author's right on a CoA is attached to the artist that draws a given representation, not to the CoA definition (the blazoning)." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. If you are the uploader, email COM:OTRS FASTILY 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)