Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Songs. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:36, 23 July 2015 (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 Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Self-promotion. Please see our project scope.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 2 August 2015 (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 Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Collection of 37 unused personal images, out of scope. Commons is no private photo album.

Achim (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some may very well be off topic, but many are not: A blanket DR like this is good for nobody, nominator included. Lets  keep them all for now and file proper DRs once homework is done. Meanwhile, I’ll add a few categories to these photos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization increases the encyclopedic value of Commons as a whole, but the value of each item does not depend on how it is categorized. Categorizing is something we do, just like deleting is, so when you consider a deletion request wondering «If only this was properly categorized…» that’s the wrong approach: Categorize it, instead, or leave it for someone else to do it.
This deletionist approach equates increasing the total encyclopedic value of Commons by either actually improving curation (categories, descriptions) or deleting miscategorized or uncategorized content items (thus improving the quota of those who are properly curated). That’s lazy and amounts to vandalism.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitly because s/he uploaded recorded music and related imagery without any reliable permission. What is obviously home-brewed shooting sessions with their girl friends in the school grounds was left out the copyvio DRs. These images are very unlikely they are also copyvios; they are being evaluated on their scope merits. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A few celebrities images can be seen at facebook as well as at blogspot. Facebook reads here Celebrities From FB Namibe Modelo Comercial Agência so we have to consider them to have found a reliable way presenting their images at Commons. At least OTRS seems to be needed. --Achim (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that’s a bummer. It is likely that they used Commons as one more platform for promotion (even if for amateurish promotion of play-pretend modelling) and didn’t care much about copyrights. But previous publication and impossibility of ascertaining authorship makes the licensing technically dubious. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Suggestion 1: If any of these files are seen as valuable for the project, the 37 files could easily be reduced to about six. Most are close variations which could be seen as amounting to unnecessary duplication. Suggestion 2: per the logos... I can't see why Wikimedia should help in the promotion of some kind of modelling agency, so on the basis that we are not here as an advertising vehicle for commercial enterprises, I think those with the logo certainly should go, which would leave File:FNT 027.JPG, FNT 047.JPG, and File:FNT 048.JPG. Acabashi (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry I had to split your comment in two in order to allow threadable replies.)
  • About suggestion 1: Close variations of the same image (unlike actual duplicates) may be of specific interest to reusers, as they can be used constratively — for things like “before/after” or "standing/sitting" mosaics or montages.
  • About suggestion 2: For the logo, see below. However note that this is not really a modelling agency — it’s just some kids playing pretend.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Update: I see that the three files mentioned above had their advertising logo cropped. This might be another option for the lot, however, cropping many of them will largely impair the subject, so, in those cases, they could be removed. Acabashi (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in one case was the logo cropped off; in the other it was “painted over” — for the exact concerns Acabashi raises. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Oops, accidentally deleted them all, will restore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Deleted, some kept: Duplicates removed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (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 Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Files with a watermark impressed, so copyright is to be assumed. The user is a sockpuppet of User:Wikimedia Angolla, with an infinite ban for copyviol, so I would assume these files are copyviol too. Moreover, Commons is not a private album/host site.

Ruthven (msg) 22:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep all (in face of what was argued in the previous DRs above), speedy close this thread, and trout Ruthven for ignoring past DR discussions covering the same tired arguments. Look, you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons? I get that, as I’ve seen so many attempted deletions with thinly veiled arguments. But at least make a new argument and admit it: After all this is the “post-reality” era, and being uncouth and bigoted gives you the Oval Office. Rehashing the same bogus concerns (excuses, really) already attempted, and failed, in the past is expressely discouraged («This page was kept after a deletion request. Please contact the administrator who kept it before re-nominating. ¶ Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/so and so– that links to this page.»). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I do not think that Copyviol is a "thinly veiled argument", as you think... and found your accusation of racism quite offensive and superficial, but maybe it's dictated by personal issues you have that do not find their place here. If you would have assumed GF, you could have simply understood that when you nominate all the uploads of a user (that are all possibly a copyviol in this case) with the tool for bulk operations, you aren't necessarily aware of past deletions; my mistake on the method, not on the form. --Ruthven (msg) 08:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep based on Hedwig in Washington already removing duplicates and the previous DR discussion. The out of scope reasons being put forward due to "self promotion" are dubious, and are not by themselves a rationale to delete if the photograph by itself has some educational value or illustrative value. If the watermarks can be explained, for example previous DRs have shows that some mobile apps can put user's watermarks on images when they take them, then these are not necessarily evidence of a copyright problem. However, I would like to see a clear explanation of why they are there. --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, in my opinion they are all out of scope. Taivo (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. They are all of the same girl, so this is like someone's personal photo album or Facebook page. Therefore, unused personal images, clearly out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Celebrities_Namibe&oldid=224843022"