Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/28
 |
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}
_2.svg){kind=link}
![80 File:"Dilbert", June 18, 2013 (9076648355).jpg](#File:"Dilbert",_June_18,_2013_(9076648355).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg){kind=link}
Improper use of talk page. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- anyone can move this to a sub-page can't they ?,
- I see that people are still using it as a talkpage.
- The same text was added three times, however, as the article would be in the same name as the user, maybe it is not a bot. Or maybe it is a clever one, some part of a wider scam that uses wiki as a source for credibility ? I'd just move it. Penyulap ☏ 09:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Thanks Penyulap. I'm closing this DR for the time-being with the hope that we don't need to revisit it. Rahul Bott (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
je l'ai inséré par erreur, ce n'est pas mon oeuvre personnelle Cocoriri (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- not own work. Cocoriri (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC) cocoriri
(DR request repaired by Gunnex (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Probably this photo was taken by Karl Kengelbacher (see: Copyvio). The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. There is no proof of {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Takabeg (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not of japanese origin thus wrong license Denniss (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Alejandro Julián, productor compositor, director musical y pianista- 2013-06-28 10-02.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Alejandro Julian Nacido en Barcelona un 7 de julio de 1973 destaca por sus varias facetas artísticas como productor compositor director musical y pianista además de representar y llevar el management de vari 2013-06-28 09-46.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Incompatible license - see Flickr source - Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Image was flickreviewed by a trusted user as being CC-BY-2.0 at the time of the upload. Tm (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, license was free upon license review Denniss (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikey own work and/or cc-by-sa-3.0. This pdf envolves multiple text and images copyrights which are not solved. Examples: pdf was created in 07.2012. Text p. 16-17 is copied from http://www.republika.co.id/berita/dunia-islam/islam-nusantara/12/05/06/m3lgyn-anak-emas-dan-ibadah-haji (05.2012, Copyright © 2012 Republika Online, All Rights Reserved). On page 16 the photo is credited with "BeritaScore.com". This file needs multiple permissions from their text and/or image copyright holders. Besides this it might be out of COM:SCOPE. Update: File was previoulsy published in 07.2012 via http://de.scribd.com/doc/112444575/2/Fokus-REALITA (Attribution Non-commercial). Gunnex (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality image, redundant with many images already available, no educational value. Just another wikiexhibitionist sharing photographs of his penis. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Personal image of no educational value MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image of no educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
unused blurry photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Jewelpet Boboiboy
[edit]
These files were only uploaded by this user for self-promotion reasons, see his contributions on Wikipedia. --Ï¿½ (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
{{duplicate|File:Laillé église.jpg}} InitialLED (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
{ InitialLED (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a dupe Denniss (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This file has been added by me but I made a mistake. I created a second file, rather than added to the original image file that is File:Laillé église.jpg. Ce fichier a été ajouté par moi mais j'ai fais une erreur. J'ai créé un second fichier plutôt que d'ajouté l'image au fichier originale qui est File:Laillé église.jpg. InitialLED (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 00:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image of no educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image of no educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal image PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No-FOP in France; church built in 1958-1960 by architect Pierre Ragois. Myrabella (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Derivative work of a copyrighted building. PierreSelim (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image of no educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and no exif. Most likely a download from the net. Canoe1967 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Though it's likely, so far I couldn't find it anywhere on the web. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It could be a scan from a book or magazine. All of the others by this uploader were deleted for similar issues. Any true creator should have higher resolution and/or exif. Has the uploader responded to any of the other images that were deleted? "I took the picture back in the 90s before exif and high resolution". I would accept. In that case we could keep it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: it would be decidedly odd if this were the only one that the uploader actually took himself. I think the time to assume good faith from this contributor has passed.--Maunus (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete copyvio via http://www.flickr.com/photos/delik/454388277/ (2007). Gunnex (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)- Speedy. Pending OTRS from source as previously published without OTRS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We have the Nazi flags in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 01:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded and is essentially a low quality duplicate of the SVGs already available. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 01:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Should indicate which SVG that is... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's the flag of Mauritius. I used to directly link them in DRs but I no longer do so because I've had admins accidentally delete the linked image too. Fry1989 eh? 03:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 01:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work Moros y Cristianos 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work Moros y Cristianos 05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work. Moros y Cristianos 05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work in view of user's upload history. Moros y Cristianos 05:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history. Note the previous discussion for the file by the same name. (Not sure if it's the same file.) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging Fastily, who closed the previous discussion and transferred the current file (from the same uploader) to Commons from English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 20:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
File:Dr Pathrose receiving Vagbhata Award for best Ayurveda Physician, 2012 from Govt. of Kerala.gif
[edit]
Probably not own work, looks like a scan (halftone) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
just a test image Wilzz99 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
After contacting the museum it turns out that the artworked photographed is created by sv:Anders Åberg who is still alive. John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
-2013-06-28T09:58:00.000Z-File:Working_woman.jpg){kind=link}
- To clarify, this work of art is located inside of the museum. Best, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This file is not relevant to any article and there is no reason for it to be on this website. Bideforddevon (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely grabbed from internet. As the file is used in the montage File:Montaje Buenos Aires Barbara.jpg, making sure if this one is not a duplicate of an already existing file (per Category:Obelisk of Buenos Aires - what I could see - apparently not), as the user already uploaded a duplicate = File:Monumento a Nicolas Avellaneda-.jpg. Text is a traduction of es:Obelisco de Buenos Aires and was apparently grabbed from http://liondorhotel.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/el-obelisco-de-buenos-aires-2/ (08.2012). Gunnex (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image is the derivative work of a photograph taken by Karl Kengelbacher who died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC) SSidharth and Sourav Suman, COO of Brogels at 5th Odisha IT Trade Festival
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Ownership is disputed. Photo found other places, including http://www.layoutshq.com/myspace-layout/new%20breed%20black%20gangster.html http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3506089645 and http://www.layoutlocator.com/myspace-layouts/gangster+disciple+nation+folk.html Niteshift36 (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Screen sur vidéo. 82.241.149.78 11:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Antanana as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Ukraine has no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright. thus photo violates copyright of sculptor Anatoliy (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. The photographer Karl Kengelbacher died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The same reason as here: no evidence that the publication right has expired for this photograph, the first known publication of which is from 2003. The originating website [1] states: "This item is only available within the Library's (NUK) premises, due to copyright protection." and the NUK site of this collection states: [2] "Only for personal usage and the purposes of study. Reproduction forbidden." Per [3], it is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unknown date of creation as well as unknown author; therefore, no evidence that it is free. Eleassar (t/p) 12:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Page used as a sandbox — TintoMeches, 14:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Inferior quality duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kl_monorail.jpg Liamdavies (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
unusable. Too blurry Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrectly labeled; not St. Paul's Chapel in New York. Manipulated (Fifth Avenue street identification sign and tall building in background). Hamblin (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syntus Twente.jpg: exactly the same logo, exactly the same arguments for deletion Pbech (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Image deleted by Fastily the April 9, 2013 (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lachar9.png), reloaded by the user JulioPerez88 the next day. Too small to be original. You can see the dot-pattern in the image, evidence that comes from a print publication. 2.137.27.55 17:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
_2.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Archivo incorrecto. El correcto es "Bandera de Almuñécar (Granada).svg" Erlenmeyer (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
_2.svg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
_2.svg){kind=link}
The only Wikimedia edit of that account. The picture is popular on the Web in bigger size and without that green dot in the angle. AVRS (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
We have this in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Defense.gov photo essay 110727-A-YV504-016.jpg Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
por falsedad Eduar3 48 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a sculuptural work of 'recent' origin Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a 'sculptural work' or recent origin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as obviously promotional material. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
por que no se emplea en ningún articulo Hunter1323 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, too blurry to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because something appears on the FBI website does not mean that it is the work of the FBI or in the public domain. This appears to be one of those cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not clear that this image was taken by the FBI, although it appears on their site. Should be deleted per precautionary principle. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
uploader requests deletion. added to commons in error Theveravee (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
![22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/28#c-Theveravee-2013-06-28T22:27:00.000Z-File:"Dilbert",_June_18,_2013_(9076648355).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
![22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/06/28#c-Fastily-2013-07-05T22:51:00.000Z-File:"Dilbert",_June_18,_2013_(9076648355).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
uploaded in error Theveravee (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
uploaded in error Theveravee (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Collection of book covers. No evidence of permissions of publishers/illustrators.
- File:Dunya k sab se barray siyasi scandal.jpg
- File:Shehwaniyat se aloohiyat tak.jpg
- File:Maharaja.jpg
- File:Kok shastr.jpg
- File:Jadu ki taareekh.jpg
- File:Hum jins parasti.jpg
- File:Cia aur dehshatgardi.jpg
- File:Amitabh bachchan.jpg
- File:101 barray haadsay.jpg
- File:Siyah yasmeen.jpg
- File:Samandar mein tadfeen.jpg
- File:Sach, muhabbat aur zara sa keena.jpg
- File:End of India.jpg
- File:Musalmanon ka siyasi arooj o zawal.jpg
- File:Muqaddas jang.jpg
- File:Zindzgi k 20 azeem sabaq.jpg
- File:Koikaamnamumkinnahi.jpg
- File:Tumjeetsakteho.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Aranjan17 / en:User:Aranjan17
[edit]- File:Check-in area.jpg – grabbed from http://www.flickr.com/photos/78236639@N00/4684915424, probably via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=58461793&postcount=4430
- File:Map of IGI.jpg – found at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=59686351&postcount=4850 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia
- File:T3 retail 2.jpg – found at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=60123053&postcount=5170 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia
- File:T3 car gargage.jpg – taken by B Mathur, Reuters according to the file's metadata; previously deleted; probably grabbed via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8359612&postcount=1
Copyright violations. Out of the only other files uploaded to English Wikipedia, en:File:T3 car park.jpg and en:File:T3 retail.JPG were deleted for lack of licensing information, while en:File:Airport express.jpg and en:File:Airport express 2.jpg were transferred to File:Airport express.jpg and File:Airport express 2.jpg and deleted along with all files uploaded directly to Commons by Aranjan17. That leaves these four files, which were transferred from English Wikipedia after the previous deletion discussion. Note that although en:File:T3 car gargage.jpg was already moved here and deleted once, it still exists on English Wikipedia and is still tagged to be moved here, so it also needs to be deleted from English Wikipedia once and for all to avoid yet another tiresome round of dealing with this copyvio-only uploader's copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've tagged en:File:T3 car gargage.jpg for deletion now. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dragon Rap221 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete File:Grand Bayou Lake.jpg = http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8502389 (2008, © Alle Rechte vorbehalten von joshuadbryan). And File:Hilton Shreveport.jpg per COM:PRP via User talk:Dragon Rap221 and logs. Gunnex (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Should become a cetegory - sorry for the inconvenience.- Torsch (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an image, but the song. The song is copyrighted. Hayk (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is a folk song - work of folklore (see template c)). It has not an author. --Interfase (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- That template only for images (photos) of work of folklore. But song's record is copyrighted work. --Hayk (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Soundtrack is copyrighted FASTILY 08:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Uploader most likely does not have rights to the logo even though he freely released the image. Could {{FoP-Israel}} possibly apply in this case? Ww2censor (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I have updated the image with licensing guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr, this photo is allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Why then do you intend to delete it?Springyboy (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- While the image may have been released under a free licence by the photographer, the logo is a derivative work and likely under copyright of the designer or organistaion whose logo it is. The photographer does not have permission to publish the logo freely, unless, as I stated, {{FoP-Israel}} applies. Ww2censor (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Get rid of this as I am uploading a new image based on the Hebrew Wikipedia image http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:19th_Maccabiah_Symbol.svg Springyboy (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- The image you intend uploading is a non-free logo too, which may be acceptable on the Hebrew wiki though this image has no fair-use rationale as required, but, sorry to say, that is not acceptable on the commons. Ww2censor (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- The image that I just recently uploaded at 2013 Maccabiah Logo has the same reasoning as the logos used for the 2009 maccabiah and ones before that. It is the only way you can get the logo, therefore making it a non-free image, which is acceptable for this kind of thing. That image doesn't deserve to be deleted. I'm not saying that this image here needs to be kept on Commons either. In fact, it has no place on Commons, but it should be kept on Wikipedia, due to the Wikipedia Flickr rules applying there. I just uploaded it here as this was where the Flickr Upload Bot was located. I never knew it shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place to Commons. Springyboy (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatives of non-free content are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 08:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Tsui as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Bad image I would not upload today and I know first hand, taht she does not appreciate it. Not used anywhere. Please delete. --Tsui (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Converted to DR for procedural reasons. I support the good-faith request by the photographer and uploader. But we need to take into account that this file may be hot-linked from external websites, such as this, this and this, where it is currently in use. If they hot-link, they should be notified before the deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg){kind=link}
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg){kind=link}
- I am wondering, that we have to take care of sites that use our images through hot linking? Usually these are sites that put as many ads and banners on their pages as they can, but they do not have the time (or rather the will to pay for the bandwith) to copy images to their own servers. Additionally none of the pages I could find really adheres to the license. In detail:
- So, we would't harm any of these reusers.
- In case of this picture, just to illustrate how problematic pictures like this can be: I know first hand, that Mrs. Breitebner does not appreciate the picture. She told me she's had quite some trouble, till it was replaced by one she was providing herself. So first of all she would not let me take another picture for Wikipedia at the event where I had the chance to speak with her - which I can understand well after her experiences with "us" - and additionally a friend of hers, also an artist, who otherwise seemed open to it, also would not pose for a picture after this little conversation. --Tsui (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 4 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses (legitimate) put no problem in this case, Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 4 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses (legitimate) put no problem in this case,
Deleted: FASTILY 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
_Konstanze_Breitebner.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Tsui as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Bad image I would not upload today. Not used anywhere. --Tsui (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Converted to DR for procedural reasons. I support the good-faith request by the photographer and uploader. But we need to take into account that this file may be hot-linked from external websites, such as this, this and this, where it is currently in use. If they hot-link, they should be notified before the deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am wondering, that we have to take care of sites that use our images through hot linking? Usually these are sites that put as many ads and banners on their pages as they can, but they do not have the time (or rather the will to pay for the bandwith) to copy images to their own servers. The sites mentioned above in detail:
- So, we would't harm any of these reusers. --Tsui (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 4 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses put no problem in this case, Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 4 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses put no problem in this case,
Deleted: FASTILY 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tsui as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Bad image I would not upload today. I am aware that we have no better portrait of him (though a better image from the same event). But this also affects my reputation when asking for accreditations. --Tsui (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC))
Converted to DR for procedural reasons. I support the good-faith request by the photographer and uploader. But we need to take into account that this file may be hot-linked from external websites, see here and here, where it is currently in use. If they hot-link, they should be notified before the deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have to take care of sites that use our images through hot linking? Usually these are sites that put as many ads and banners on their pages as they can (including pop ups when visitors leave the site), but they do not have the time (or rather the will to pay for the bandwith) to copy images to their own servers. Additionally none of the pages I could find - of which not one is hot linking to us - really adheres to the license. In detail:
- [10], [11]: no hot linking and no license informations at all
- [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]: no hot linking and incomplete license
- [17]: just an automated collector of infos available online.
- [18]: no hot linking, their thumb links to the image description here
![[12]](http://www.autogrammadressen.org/images/253089-640-tim-maelzer.jpg.html){kind=link}
- So, we would't harm any of the reusers. --Tsui (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 3 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses put no problem in this case, Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For an image uploaded 3 year ago, when considering deletion (except for copyvio) we should indeed take some care of legitimate (i.e., license-compliant) re-users. It's a question of the reliability of Commons. As the identified re-uses put no problem in this case,
- Keep What is bad about this image? Seems average quality to me, certainly usable. If somebody uses it according to the CC-BY-SA and not the GFDL, you can require them not to attribute you anymore if you think that harms your reputation, see the end of section 4a. darkweasel94 20:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The depicted will likely still associate it with the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- As a photography it may be of (low) average quality. As a portrait of an identifyable person it is not good enough, not for my own demands on pictures I make available here (which have grown significantly over the years) and not as a portrait in Wikipedia, one of the most viewed sites on the web. We do bear responsibility for the images we put online, even if it may be legally alright, there's also an ethical aspect. To me it is first of all a question of respect for the people we portray in texts and images. As I wrote initially: I would not upload it today. And I would be glad to know that it is not available here anymore. --Tsui (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy delete FASTILY 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not own work of the uploader, not released under a free license, has been deleted before in a different file format, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Hermes.png Pbech (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The source of this image is a photograph of a bus I made in public space. I processed that photograph in several steps into this svg. Pimvantend (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Then it is still a copyright violation, in my opinion: although the logo has been photographed in a public place, the logo has been heavily processed and is not displayed 'as-is' ('zoals het zich daar bevindt', as the Dutch Auteurswet says). Pbech (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Heavily processed? You can judge for yourself now. Pimvantend (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently we have a different idea of how heavily this has been processed, but in my opinion it does not meet the requirements of 'freedom of panorama' in the The Netherlands. The processed logo no longer shows anything of the surroundings, and at least according to this expert that is a requirement. Pbech (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free logos are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it shows a scene in a particular indian café. It's also already categorized correctly, why couldn't it be useful? --Darklingou (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It does not show the cafe enough. You will come and add every image under Category:Earth and claim its usefulness. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Miško Kranjec
[edit]The same reason as here: no evidence that the publication right has expired for these photographs.
* For some of them, the originating website [19] states: "This item is only available within the Library's (NUK) premises, due to copyright protection." and the NUK site of this collection states: [20] "Only for personal usage and the purposes of study. Reproduction forbidden." Per [21], it is not free for Commons.
* For the rest, the copyright status is unknown in this regard.
- File:Misko Kranjec (1938).JPG
- File:Miško Kranjec 1964 (2).jpg
- File:Miško Kranjec 1964.jpg
- File:Naci Paljin Kranjec (1940s).jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I believe the date at dlib.si stands for date of publication. Search lets you sort by "leto izida" (year of publication). It can't be year of creation, because many photos have year after the depicted person has died[22][23][24]. And "This item is only available within the Library's (NUK) premises, due to copyright protection." is a recent bug - it is everywhere, even at clearly PD files, and the photos are available to download despite it says they aren't. --Sporti (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If the search contains 'leto izida', this does not necessarily mean that all the files in the dLib have been published already before, because the search is the same for the entire dLib and it's just the title of the search, not a specific information about a specific file. I seriously doubt that the entire collection of 11,000 portraits has been taken from older publications. The year may simply refer to the year when an image was added to the collection. Also, as to the perceived bug, the images are available for download only in a small resolution, although they exist in higher resolutions too.[25] --Eleassar (t/p) 20:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- All the images from this collection are limited to 500x? px. The ones that had that warning before the bug aren't available to download at all[26]. And even if this is the year when an image was added to the collection (but I don't think so), adding to a museum collection is publishing as well so they are free either anyway.--Sporti (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then how can we know for sure when an image was added to the collection and since when it has been accessible to the public (which means 'published')? In addition, the first photograph was not taken from the dLib and the fourth one does not have any link where this could be verified. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't know about pics 1 and 4 as they don't have a source, but according to this acquired material is published - added to the collection: "Zbirka zbira, strokovno obdeluje, hrani, predstavlja in daje v uporabo originalno in reproducirano grafiko, umetniške reprodukcije v listih, mapah in albumih brez obsežnejšega besedila, fotografije, slovenske plakate, stenske ilustrirane koledarje, razglednice, portrete pomembnih osebnosti, spominske albume, ekslibrise, vedute mest in pokrajin, umetniške voščilnice in podobice. Posebna pozornost posvečamo nacionalni produkciji. Zbirka opravlja informacijske, referalne in edukacijske dejavnosti in sodeluje pri oblikovanju Digitalne knjižnice Slovenije.
- Kartografski in grafični oddelek je bil ustanovljen leta 1945. V prvih letih delovanja je oddelek prevzel večino slikovnega gradiva iz obstoječega knjižnega fonda NUK ter gradivo iz Federalnega zbirnega centra, ki je v knjižnico prišlo po koncu vojne. Od samega začetka delovanja se zbirka dopolnjuje z obveznim izvodom, darovi, nakupi in zamenami."[27]
- So if the year stands for when it was originally published (as I think and as it says at search) or year it was acquired for the collection (as you think), either way it is free. --Sporti (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is truly doubtful. For example, here you may see results that state 'leto izida' and are dated from 1974 to 1981. Yet, here you may read that they were acquired and published only in 2009. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- These photos were actually published before in 1978 and 1981[28]. --Sporti (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for having provided this info, however:
- 1) The nominated images have not been published in the mentioned books.
- 2) Per Kukec, 'leto izida' actually does not refer to 'year of publication' or 'year of inclusion' but 'year of creation', because the photographs by Kukec were not published or included in the collection but created in the cited years.
- 3) It is apparent that in the cases when the year is later than the death of the portrayed person, it refers to the year when the copy [29] or the derived work [30] was created.
- This means that for the majority of images we don't know when they were originally published or included in the collection and must therefore presume (per COM:PRP) that they are still protected.
- --Eleassar (t/p) 17:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mayority of the collection was created with copies of published works (obvezni izvod).[31]--Sporti (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this is written nowhere. The above-cited page [32] states that two authors have contributed most of the portraits, not a number of authors as would be expected in the case of deposit copies ('obvezni izvod'). --Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your source says most recent portrait photos were made by them ("Večino sodobnih portretnih fotografij sta ustvarila Tihomir Pinter in Božidar Dolenc."), but we can't use recent photos anyway. --Sporti (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but what does 'recent' refer to in exact terms and where is it written that the collection was created with copies of published works (an exact citation is needed)? By the way, have you spotted that images by Kukec (e.g. [33]) don't have this statement "This item is only available within the Library's (NUK) premises, due to copyright protection." that you have called "a recent bug". As you have stated, these were published already in 1978 and 1981 and as such these are indeed free, therefore "the bug" is not needed. For the others, the situation remains unclear. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Obvezni izvod je bil in je še zmeraj najpomembnejši vir dotoka kartografskega in slikovnega gradiva. V času od ustanovitve zbirke pa do leta 1991 je predstavljal tudi do 80% dotoka."[34] Tihomir Pinter - "Vaš prvi fotografski album slovenskih literatov je star dvajset let."[35], Božidar Dolenc - "V Ljubljani je umrl večkrat nagrajeni fotograf Božidar Dolenc, ki je pomembno prispeval k dokumentiranju subkulture osemdesetih, v zadnjem obdobju pa se je posvečal predvsem portretni fotografiji."[36] And all the photos in the collection seem to contain this warning, even if they are 300 years old, so it has to be a bug. --Sporti (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- This refers to a much larger collection (including cartographic works, postcards etc.), therefore it is hard to say that 80% also holds true for the collection of portraits that is part of it. Also, even if we presume 20% originates from other sources, how can we possibly know which portraits belong to this group and whether they're free? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- They were published as a part of the collection, so it doesn't matther if they belong to this group of not. --Sporti (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 08:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:MikeyMoose
[edit]- File:Keji_calm.jpg
- File:Keji_calm2.jpg
- File:Keji_canoe.jpg
- File:Keji_road.jpg
- File:Keji_sunrise_trees.jpg
- File:Keji_trees.jpg
- File:Keji_canoe_sunset.jpg
- File:Keji_island_beach.jpg
- File:Keji_canoe_launch.jpg
Reason: Privacy. I wish to remove these images from the Commons as they have my real name associated --MikeyMoose (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)