Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/24
 |
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}
Not US employee. Invalidate license. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep, I think there must be some mistake - "DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Air Force"? Benchill (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
CommentAccording to w:Godfrey Ngwenya, this person was never part of the US airforce --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment That's right, but he didn't take the photo, he is the subject. The person taking the photo is the criteria, this photo was taken by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, of the U.S. Air Force. It is the work of McNeeley taken during official duties, so the license is appropriate. Benchill (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah ok. I thought the license applied to the subject. Nomination withdrawn. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn -- Deadstar (msg) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Dubious title, looks like downloaded from a site --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, see [1]. –Tryphon☂ 09:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/0603/7cf3a999-65fd-4361-a3a9-3bee031d9ade.jpg?adImageId=5819857&imageId=705208){kind=link}
Deleted. Blatant copyvio from Zimbio[2]Justass (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks self promotional --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
copyvio, see http://birdbreath.com/calendar/calendar.php?month=2&year=2007&url=../images1/20070221.png Paradoctor (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted # (show/hide) 14:09, 24 May 2010 ABF (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:20070221.png" (Fair use material is not allowed on Commons: http://birdbreath.com/images1/20070221.png) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 11:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is uploaded for insulting someone. 더위먹은민츠(Mintz) / 토론 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. previously deleted file – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This file is uploaded for insult someone. 더위먹은민츠(Mintz) / 토론 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep strong keep - it is used several times, quality seems to be ok. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The image seem like the size of thumb nails. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment please look at the article where it is used - only part of the tricot, the quality is definitively OK. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Nomination withdrawn. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn -- Deadstar (msg) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
how can a "bank" logo be self made??? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio -- Deadstar (msg) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletedbut not by -- Deadstar (msg) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
copyvio from http://places.eyetour.com/shopsAndServices/carolina/6/aeropuerto-luis-munoz-marin , http://eyetour.com/blog/faq/ clearly indicates that redistribution is prohibited. --nandhp (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern works of architecture or art in South Africa. Leoboudv (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A lawn with stands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: But this is a stadium, is it not? --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted-No FOP in source country--KTo288 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality image, out of scope --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, reading the user profile, it seems a self promotion issue. The guy it's a physicians from Rome but without any particular notability. He claims to be a professor of the University of Rome (La Sapienza) but, consulting their site, there isn't any professor with such a name at Rome University. For sure not at the Medicine Faculty where he claims to teach. No other contributions, not a wikipedian. On the spot, it seems banal self promotion using, fraudly, the wiki user pages (nowadays quite popular in enWikipedia). But, he could be just a beginner with good intentions. If he is really a professor, he can be very useful tot the project providing a lot of interesting material beside this amatorial and pseudo-artistic portrait. Let's see.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted was in the no-license-category and it really had no license ;) abf «Cabale!» 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image with nonexisting category - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private picture. Not illustrative.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image (should be a politician from somewhere in latin america) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete es:Jose Antonio Calan Mut, self-promotional article of a person 'sin relevancia'. The scaled down duplicate taht was likely used inside that article, File:Calan3.jpg (new users often think they must reduce the image sice instead asking if they did everything correct with the inclusion...), was deleted accordingly as self-promotion. --Martin H. (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private logo (or something) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be a copyright vio from http://article.pchome.net/content-1012114.html. Copyright notice visible at bottom of page.--Sandahl (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete And it looks like a Mario Bros character.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
promotional text (biography) of a politician from uruguay - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very close to self-promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope/ -Nard the Bard 07:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete What is the meaming of this image anyway. Its totally unencyclopedic. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteThe daily boy band self-promoting.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange phantastic logo - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, unusual, and many other "un"'s can be used to describe this picture. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see any use for it at the moment.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeletePrivate image.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - no useful content - out of scope (look at the description) Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr style picture. Geometry and colors for a nice shot. No illustrative purpose, apparently. But may be it's just me.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JOSELUISMEDINA-1999.jpg 83.253.245.77 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One has the border removed. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
private picture of extremely low quality --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For self definition: Private picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused invitation card - without context: out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. Amada44 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a group - without context = out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above, although it could be used to illustrate underfunding in education (I think there's about 4 students per pc). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Well it's a classroom, a bunch of students, someone teaching. It's very close to "personal" but it's borderline and, generically, we can find the way to categorize it. Unfortunately the uploader forgot to mention which university, which faculty.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (can someone identify this women??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- CommentAccording to the description, it is a self-portrait of user. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Without any further information, it's just a private picture. She seems to have a wedding/ceremony haircut but in a strange background: it looks like a blurred stadium. We need definitively more information to keep it. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a person from brazil (?) - article in pt-WP was deleted - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. Amada44 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Bad self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, no context Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion and a copyright issue: who is the author of the canvas/drawing behind the guy? Anyway, if the guy in the picture is someone pretending to be important, like a CEO (if we can consider CEOs as important persons), he needs a good session of personal coaching because from the picture itself he looks like just as a smiling loser. Terribly bad self promotion in crap-magazine-cover style.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Singing Scott Brothers, Live at The Grand Pavilion Theatre, Bridlington, 1953. From the 'Remastered' album" This is not self made, and likely still copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The recording is out of copyright, but the music (Vincent Rizzo) and the lyrics (Meroff, Spear) are ©1948 - still protected unless {{PD-US-no renewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted composition. The composer Jack Strachey died in 1972, so the work is still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Automatic UK copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's taken from http://www.myspace.com/pickeringtoncentralmarchingtigers, it's not "self made" and cannot be put into the PD by uploader.. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
no source, no license, no description, unused, useless Frédéric (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless this way. Just uploading pics it's not enough for Commons. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unknown person, unused, no cat, useless Frédéric (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private picture --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
From http://fossilridge.phanfare.com/2085433#imageID=28592535 - it states that if you want prints of this image, to contact David Kozlowski. Nothing about it being Public Domain or similar. Uploader cannot release this photo. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not used, no educational value Torin (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete--Motopark (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. Amada44 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personal pic.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused painting - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused drawing - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused collage - out of scope, unusable (like other files of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Christianism = AIDS. It could be true but, to illustrate that, we need something more than a strange digital collage. Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
impressing still live ..., nice title - out of scope , unused private image Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"Ben Relaxing by Fish Tales Bait Shop" on the page for en:Fox Lake, Wisconsin. I think this is a personal promotional photo... nothing encyclopedic about it. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:060309 2047-00-.jpg - "Kelley by Fish Tales Bait Shop" of random person holding up a fish. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private. Not illustrative.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
typo. New upload here: File:Nick Barrett, 2010 Aschaffenburg.JPG Claus Ableiter (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC) --Claus Ableiter (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused self promotion of a musician from spain - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Tiny, low resolution, 25x52, 2.8 KB size file. Useless --Sandahl (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a roof construction against the light - for me: out of scope , useless Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Sandahl (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm hanging this tag because I don't know how we feel about this. The record that goes with this label was made in 1937 -- see the Wikipedia article on Coleman Hawkins which mentions this gig. The question is, who is the author of the label? If it's Coleman Hawkins, then it's not PD because he died 1969. But, my reading would be that the legal author is either Swing Records or an anonymous staff member of Swing records. Then if we ignore the French copyright extensions and use the 70 year rule, it is not in copyright. My vote is actually KEEP, but I recognize that others may differ. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd even say this is PD-ineligible. The design of this record doesn't look copyrightable to me. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the record label is an anonymous design. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope malo (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work (drawing) of a copyrighted movie character. fetchcomms☛ 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Since it is classified as fanart, I think it should be kept, or have someone upload a screenshoot of Scratte with the proper licensing information. Name of the file should be File:Scratte.png. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Screenshots go on Wikipedia, not Commons, as they are copyrighted. Fanart could also be copyrighted if it's close enough to the original to qualify as a derivative work (hence this deletion request). fetchcomms☛ 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded it here because I could find the upload image for at wikipedia, since I found it, you can delete this image, I upload better version anyway. --Hjfhksdjf (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks to have been taken from a book or other publication. fetchcomms☛ 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete probably a collage, lacking sources. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
an unremarkable image of grass at night malo (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused band photo, out of scope malo (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Possible copyvio: [3]. Trycatch (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
appears to be vandalism of an old portrait, never properly sourced or identified on en.wiki before being transferred here malo (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Spam.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope malo (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private. Not illustrative, apparently.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope malo (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
low quality image of someone's router? malo (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - not useful Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
very low quality image of some performer, poorly described, uncategorized, unused malo (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, Commons is not a flickr dump --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Is Femdom out of scope? BSDM out of scope? Also how is this photo a dump of flickr? Image is in scope. If someone doesnt like it, dont look at it. Tm (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nominator has gone through each of my uploads and nominated them for deletion. As his nominations fail, he is actually now renominating each of them a week later (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg for a great example, nominated, kept, nominated, kept, nominated, kept...I'm sure he'll nominate again tomorrow). These are bad-faith nominations aimed at advancing the user's personal vision of WMF. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have added the {{personality}} tag. Amada44 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not pornographic in any way Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
just a blank page??? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Erroneous deletion rationale. Image only looks blank as the automatic scaling doesn't work on such high-res images. The downloaded full image is completelly ok. However, I'd be unsure about the licensing status, because not everyone has the equipment to do such professional highres promo images. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Duplicate of File:Rossymendoza.jpg --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per PaterMcFly. Though a quick search of the web didn't yield this image, it's rather unlikely that a user with overall 2 uploads owns the rights over this image. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like one of the children/fans made a special purpose account to download the images on that actress category:Rossy Mendoza . --Foroa (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Huh, children, such an image? Not much doubt about the uploader being a fan, but why/how does that make the copyright claim ("own work") more credible? --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteI think it's a 300 dpi scan from a A4 magazine, which is where the large bit size came from. The image shows the characteristic moire of such a scan and the paper size is about right. Aside from the strong possibility of copyvio, I would delete it on the grounds that its quality does not match its bit size, so it would be just a nuisance to use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
strong suspicion of copyvio per scan Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
low quality private image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Low quality cannot be a motive for deletion. --Foroa (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Quality not an issue, but who is she? Is it within scope (as it's not used)-- Deadstar (msg) 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- According to the picture, it is a self portrait. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is a French choreographer and president of a dance association. That's how we build up a database; many artists submit their own photos. --Foroa (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete; nothing to indicate that this would be a self portrait. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
low quality map --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep strong keep - used and appropriate - "Changing the world..." must be in the right direction ?! :) :) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah but, the image is of such low quality. It looks that this has been drawn in paint. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong keep Low quality? The map HELPS the encyclopedia article we created. Create a better one then delete. Fine for now.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Dr. Blofeld. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - disruptive nomination (two minutes after upload!), file is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Photo of a band. Seems promotional --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photomontage, used to be used on de:wiki. No reason to delete. --Foroa (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment will be deleted anyways without OTRS. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to doubt own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of two original compositions. Both "How High the Moon" (1940) and "Ornithology" (1946) are still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- ... only if copyright was renewed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. I checked my copy of The Real Book, and for "How High the Moon" it says "Copyright (c) 1940 by Chappell & Co., Copyright Renewed". Similarly for "Ornithology": "Copyright (c) 1946 (Renewed 1974) Atlantic Music Corp". Jafeluv (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete which makes it absolutely clear that this is a copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source site given, http://www.madaboutmountains.com/ has no indication of licensing on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Another image from the same website reads: "Associated website http://www.keswick.u-net.com states "you are welcome to copy and use these pictures but please credit the photographer - Ann Bowker - or better still include a link to my homepage mad about mountains", but I can't find that info? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I found it at the bottom of http://www.keswick.u-net.com/ldp.htm /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Previously nominated and kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bowfell.jpg. However, the page cited for the copyright by Peter Kuiper does not include this image. Kelly (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The source given is http://www.madaboutmountains.com/00615m.jpg on Ann Bowker's old site, the same site name that she mentions in the quoted license (but with a hyperlink to the new site). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The license only appears to apply to the images on that particular page. Kelly (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- She has the same license on her photos for 2006, 2007, probably also for 2008 and 2009. Here and here are more recent, higher quality images than this pre-2006 photo. So, go ahead, and replace it if you cannot trust uploaders at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The license only appears to apply to the images on that particular page. Kelly (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Forgive me, I'm new to the Commons deletion process, but could we not just contact the photographer using the email address on the Mad About Mountains website and ask what license they may be used under? - Highfields (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Jcb (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Corresponding article on en: wiki has been deleted as "not notable". Description "Highland park lofts building" gives me quite a few hits on Google, none of which seem to be in the UK (the automatic category seems to suggest it's in the UK). Out of scope as cannot be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Since when we are deleting photographs of unnotable (in Wikipedia standards) buildings? Of course, the cat was wrong, this is the building from Miami, Florida: [4]. Trycatch (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Trycatch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a derivative of presumably copyrighted, non-free content shown on a television or jumbotron. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Motopark (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note that this will also affect the fate of File:BannerPortalMadonna.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think she is only standing in front of a tv screen. Since nothing is really visible from that picture, I don't see a problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If everything else is allright: Keep She is only standing in front of a gigantic screen. Amada44 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per McFly and Amada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No source or publication date. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep These bandurist images are old enough to be PD. en:Kuban_bandurists suggests these images are from the 1920's or 1930's at the latest. -Nard the Bard 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope, self promotional malo (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also add File:LT logo alt1.png and File:Lantrojan4 bakgrund.jpg for the same reasons. -- malo (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
source-page not found abf «Cabale!» 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This should not be a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The original file had the website's watermark on it. Orionist (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FARROKH CHOTHIA is a professional photographer. Image should be deleted unless the uploader is able to provide a permission for the use of this image. Camera modle is also different from the other images uploaded by this user. Smells like copyvio. User previously uploaded copyvio images of this actress. Denniss (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1944 image of damage done to a church in the Netherlands. Not likely to be self made, not old enough to be PD. Unknown source. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Architectural drawing by Jan Rebel. Not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The architectual drawing has been made by Thomas van Vliet, owner of Architectenbureau Jan Rebel. The license is given by him. There is no reason at all to delete this drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. van Bladel (talk • contribs)
- This would require a message to COM:OTRS from http://www.janrebel.eu/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Image with OTRS release but I am convinced that IndiaFM (the releasee) is not the copyright holder. This image is a crop of i.indiafm.com/memories/09/laragaladinnerhosted/still1.jpg with another version hosted by Life (www.life.com/image/93447009) attributes this as a Wire Image supplied photo by Nick Harvey. Peripitus (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- IndiaFM doesn't actually release all images - the uploader added the standard template but it requires a second individual permission. Hekerui (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Also derivative, File:Uschi Glas.jpg. Appears to be a scan from a magazine or something. Uploader's only non-deleted contribution. Other deleted contribution is some black-and-white photo. Highly suspect. Wknight94 talk 14:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Maybe related to company de:Etienne Aigner AG, uploaded here with wrong or incomplete author and source information. See also Commons:Permission, for undeletion the correct copyright owner must be named and the process of COM:OTRS must be followed. --Martin H. (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Camgsm01.jpg
[edit]
a phone card??? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted 
Done abf «Cabale!» 09:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image not being used for educational purposes, unlikely to be, and thus out of scope JN466 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no model age or consent noted. Out of scope. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's a great illustration of mutual lesbian masturbation (and therefore perfectly in the scope and usable !). The arguments of age and consent seem to be unvalid since the persons are not recognizable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Infringes on COM:PORN. No use other than MRB's user page. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, neither the age nor consent are required by law, nominator seems to be pursuing a personal agenda against images (including those in use on multiple projects and clearly educational) with any hint of visible bodies...even if they just happen to include a bikini. AGF seems to have gone out the window with Jimbo's new jihad against "distasteful" corners of reality. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Copy and paste rebuttal. Neither Stillwaterising nor me Tyw7 is AGF! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep useful eg. for articles about lesbian love. @Stillwaterising: No model age or consent required / AGF sufficient. @Tyw7, I hope you know the basic wiki principle en:WP:AGF. --Saibo (Δ) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes, always confusing with 3 letter short names of policies :/ --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Propose a new template: {{Restricted use}}, which is in use at en wiki {{Restricted use}}.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- Don't forget that this template on en.wiki is used to prevent displaying of images but only if they are heavily used for vandalism. Which is not really (I think) much of a problem on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep illustrates lesbian relationships. Apart from AGF, the girls seem to be old. Notice the wrinkles and veins in the hand of the girl in the right. It doesn't look like the hand of a young person. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons isn't censored, don't try to force your violent culture on others. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I would love to delete this as a fairly rubbish image, but we don't have many alternatives of a similar vein. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, low quality image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Was closed as keep just 5 days ago. Nominator should be slapped about with a trout. -Nard the Bard 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Non admin closure. Previous debate was only closed five days ago. Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
76.121.125.205 07:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No argument given by anonymous nominator, does not rebut any of the previous arguments. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll let it run a few days, see if the IP comes back. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Dcoetzee and the previous closed requests above. — Jeff G. ツ 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Abuse of DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept due to lack of rationale for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally unnecessary. Erotic. Misleading ! Monsterkillu (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per the three DRs above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept Inappropriate baseless nomination, kept per 3 previous discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Yet another penis image. Commons has too many of them already...and we have a no penis template here. Leoboudv (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- KeepWe have a rule against grabbing your webcam and dropping your pants, not against artistic depictions that include a penis. If this were a painting from 1922, it'd certainly be notable/allowed - I don't see much difference. This example is clearly taken as "art" not "porn". It's not exactly File:Fellation from 2006.JPG; it's more akin to File:Wiki-fellatio.png Max Rebo Band (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is not an ordenary penis image. This is more softcore. --MGA73 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --Nicor (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept because per Commons:Project scope "Commons is not censored".
Additional explanation: It's true that we have enough low resoluted images of the male genitalia (or in short dicks) on Commons. However, this image has a resolution of 2.580 × 2.176 and is made of good quality compared to low resoluted 500 × 500 webcam-dicks with very poor quality. The version of Erect penis.jpg which got uploaded on 09:56, 3. Jan. 2009 was a perfect example for a low resoluted (226 × 115), low quality dick until it got deleted. I added a adequate description and {{Personality rights}} because you can see a part of the womans face. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No model age, or consent given in source. Violates COM:NUDE and "only serves purient interests". Stillwaterising (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used for educational purposes, unlikely to be, fails COM:PORN. --JN466 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope image, not used for education, nor ever likely to be. (Note to closing admin: I asked Jayen466 to help with this nomination because I am short on time and not yet familiar with the nomination process here, but Stillwaterising nominated it first. ) Jehochman (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can truely say what this pic should show or educate us...--Yikrazuul (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Could someone with some medical knowledge take a look at this one? Some type of polyps on the penis? STD? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (lol) Could be Fordyce's spots. Maybe I'll change my vote to keep as an excellent example of common skin condition. (jk) - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Move the face out of the way and there would be much better light to see. Jehochman (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Actually I want to change my answer to Hirsuties papillaris genitalis. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete no educational use --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, unanimous agreement just months ago that it fits scope and violates no laws. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment3 editors does not make a unimous agreement? Plus, now we have more people voting to delete it. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no bad quality. I guess this is the only image showing this position of two persons. Do not censor the whole world. --Saibo (Δ) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Realistically useful for an educational purpose in articles like oral sex, penis, sex... --83.240.87.194 11:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes sure, very realistic and fortunately the only picture...gee! --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored. Tanvir 18:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored. Thanks for admitting this "only serves purient interests" for you. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I was a bit ambivalent on this image, but on judgement and looking at past consensus it should be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope, not used anywhere. Low quality image --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Abusive DR. Kept just 5 days ago. -Nard the Bard 07:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard. Tm (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Non admin closure. Previous debate was closed only a week ago. Garion96 (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in source." This has not been addressed at all, as you can see above. We need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these. Conti|✉ 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given that and 3 previous keep votes, Keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to identifiable people in sexually explicit images? --Conti|✉ 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: For the first concern (model age), please see {{2257}}. For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a number of years (flickr set), some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but justifiably in my opinion --moogsi (blah) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Logo of Scout group. Author = 02 Raffles Scout Group, so cannot be released with a PD-Self license. There could be another license that might apply? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- OTRS? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- A simple combination of the scouting fleur-de-lis with the school's heraldic eagle would seem PD-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Is there evidence the eagle is in the public domain? It seems too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission, no evidence that the eagle is in the public domain and too complicated for {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 13:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Image of a UFO hoax according to en:Col de Vence Medusa. In the article, image is claimed to be taken by "Julien", however uploader's name seems to be Keith6666 (talk · contribs). It could all be part of the hoax... Opinions on validity of <<self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0>> licensing? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 13:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is really the uploaders work. Image is also on http://www.puppetgov.com/2009/06/14/report-shell-co-opted-nigerian-military/ Avron (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete From the first time I have seen this picture I thought about a copyviol. It looked like a press picture taken from an internet site (size says a lot) and then Avron has found out probably the real source. Without any further info, it should go, unfortunately.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
René Grandjean lived until 1963. 84.73.128.65 12:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be deleted. In good faith, the source given does not mention any restrictions regarding that photo, please see http://www.aerodrome-gruyere.ch/hommage/failloubaz.htm. See also File:Ernst Failloubaz.jpg, File:Ernest Failloubaz - Armand Dufaux - Dufaux 5 - Januar 1911.jpg and File:Ernest Failloubaz 1910.jpg, also nominated for deletion by same IP. 77.56.162.147 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. If the author died 1963 his work will simply not be PD untill 1963+(70+1)= 2034, no matter the source gives restrictions or not. Read Commons:Image casebook on internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Author probably not dead for 70 years. 84.73.128.65 18:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be deleted. The source given does not mention any restrictions regarding that photo, and, in good faith, "unknown" usually means that the author should/could/would be dead since more than 70 years, pls see source given. See also File:Ernst Failloubaz.jpg, File:Ernest Failloubaz - Armand Dufaux - Dufaux 5 - Januar 1911.jpg and File:Ernest Failloubaz 1910.jpg, also nominated for deletion by same IP. 77.56.162.147 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ernest_Failloubaz_1910.jpg
No FOP in France. fetchcomms☛ 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- (Uploader and photographer here) Oh, give me a break. This photo is being widely used (and re-used on various other sites). I'm sure no one will sue us for this. Or me for that matter. After all, you really cannot see the whole structure/building, just a part of it. --Filip (§) 00:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does the building really fall under de minimis? Not in my opinion, as it fills nearly the whole image. Is it original enough? A yes from me as well. I don't care if you get sued or not, it's the law. Same's as murdering someone but never getting caught--while extreme, doesn't justify it. Nor does it being widely used--after all, child porn is widely distributed and that's illegal. Forgive my over-the-top examples, but the law is the law, and to me this appears to be a copyvio because of (imo) silly FOP restrictions. C'mon, Dungodung. fetchcomms☛ 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then let's agree to disagree and let people cast their votes, provided they want to. --Filip (§) 09:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does the building really fall under de minimis? Not in my opinion, as it fills nearly the whole image. Is it original enough? A yes from me as well. I don't care if you get sued or not, it's the law. Same's as murdering someone but never getting caught--while extreme, doesn't justify it. Nor does it being widely used--after all, child porn is widely distributed and that's illegal. Forgive my over-the-top examples, but the law is the law, and to me this appears to be a copyvio because of (imo) silly FOP restrictions. C'mon, Dungodung. fetchcomms☛ 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "I really think you can relax about this [...] the better remedy in my view is to let the injured copyright holder invoke DMCA takedown remedies (with which of course the WMF would comply)," as Mike Godwin said. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
unused strange spanish diagram - if there is something that will not work, it is this kind of "bioelectrotherapy" - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I converted this file to SVG, which in case of a map is preferable to JPEG. The SVG version can be found here.
Gladiool (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Probably also the svg should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ciutat vella.pdf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
duplicate with File:Pes anserinus.png matanya • talk 10:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Info The other image is larger. Use {{duplicate|other_file.jpg}} to mark images as duplicates. Amada44 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The difference is a circle, pointing out the pes anserinus in the other file. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 21:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims "own work" on all uploads. I do not believe this is own work, however I can't seem to find it online. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The signature does not say "M. van Bladel". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This looks like it has been scanned in from a document. As such it's most likely a derivative work of a copyrighted object. Lokal_Profil 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not scanned, but photographed. As such, it is free. --Kwasura (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep PD-old and/or PD-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf (Own work using the official Swedish documents). Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The primary subject of the photo appears to be a jumbotron or projection screen displaying footage by someone other than the would-be licensor, which would make this an unauthorized derivative work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note that this will also affect the fate of File:BannerPortalMadonna.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- (File:BannerPortalMadonna.jpg has now been deleted because of other problems with that file.) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A simple crop would remove this problem instead of deleting the file itself. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 07:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete there's nothing worthy left after a crop, unfortunately. Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. After cropping the backdrop would disappear, but it would still have the boxing performance. Wikimedia doesnot always go for all high-resolution image, so this one can exist without being one. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Tbhotch (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Please present your arguments, if you have any. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Because it is not a copyright violation. If you can prove that this is the case, I'll change my mind. Tbhotch (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you think that it is not a copyright violation? The picture shown on the jumbotron is the result of a technical director's and camera operator's creative decision-making, and it is therefore a copyrighted work. The picture on the jumbotron is the primary subject of the photograph. Taking a photo of someone else's copyrighted work does not "liberate" it from the original copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well stated! Hekerui (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that if I transmite something by any screen, I automatically own that work and I get a copyright of it? Tbhotch (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Transmission is not a creative process. I'm saying that if you make creative decisions with regards to camera angles, for example, you gain copyright of the resulting work. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted projection. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
dubious licensing. OTRS needed? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment + 1 - need OTRS from the photographer Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
unsure copyright status: all other contributions of the user were copyright violations, no evidence this is an own work (e.g. non EXIF data). Probably copyrighted image. --Simo82 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Blatantly looks like a copyrighted press photo found somewhere in the Web, no reason to believe this is a genuine self-made work. --Angelo (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright is infringed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, sign is {{PD-textlogo}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Il n'y a aucun Quick sur la commune de Montigny / There is not Quick to Montigny but to Herblay. Mairie de Montigny lès Cormeilles (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, c'est (c'était) à Herblay ? C'est une bonne raison pour corriger la légende, mais pas pour supprimer l'image, voyons ! Jean-no (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
File:StampEstonia1991Michel165.jpg also nominated for same reason. Even if the central coat of arms is covered by PD-EE-exempt, the whole stamp still falls under copyright. Quibik (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Вообще-то это изображение герба, которое находится в PD, всё же остальное (буковки, или же циферки) в PD-trivial, но здесь это никого не волнует. Не волнует никого так же и то, что Eesti Post лояльно отнеслось к помещению изображений марок в Википедии, о чём есть письмо. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't consider the background of the coat of arms to be part of the CoA. That is certainly non-trivial, even if the lettering is. Also, insulting me is not too helpful to the discussion... —Quibik (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ну вообще-то гильоширование, это та штука на фоне которой расположен герб, делает машина, которой авторское право не ведомо. А позвольте узнать, чем же это я Вас оскорбил? Уж не тем ли, что по-русски пишу? Если так, то извиняйте, языками не владеем в должной мере. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- If that is true, then I'll gladly withdraw my nomination, but I'm not convinced by the argument that being machine-created does not create copyright for it. Perhaps someone else can comment on this? —Quibik (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ну вообще-то гильоширование, это та штука на фоне которой расположен герб, делает машина, которой авторское право не ведомо. А позвольте узнать, чем же это я Вас оскорбил? Уж не тем ли, что по-русски пишу? Если так, то извиняйте, языками не владеем в должной мере. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't consider the background of the coat of arms to be part of the CoA. That is certainly non-trivial, even if the lettering is. Also, insulting me is not too helpful to the discussion... —Quibik (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep on the grounds that it lacks originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I doupt originality (extraordinary or ordinary) is the case as for copyright. Pikne 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, sufficiantly original to be protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Alex19811981
[edit]I am not sure there is anything to worry about here, but want someone else to have a look and then perhaps close this DR if they agree there is nothing out of the ordinary. I have not tagged the files with a DR template as I would like to have another opinion first. I will put the template on if someone agrees that there might be something odd here.
The following are all files (and only edits) by Alex19811981 (talk · contribs). They all concern the same topic, the SEZ Alabuga Economic Zone in Tartastan. The photographs are mostly full size, have EXIF data, but the dates and cameras vary. Also, they seem to be taken at key moments in the development of the Economic Zone (ie Vladimir Putin visiting, the first train arriving) so could be taken from elsewhere. TinEye wasn't any help.
Name of the file > Camera manufacturer > Camera model > Date and time of data generation
- File:Visit of Prime-Minister of Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.jpg Canon Canon EOS 20D 27/05/2004 21:07
- File:Unit of profound audit.JPG Canon Canon PowerShot G7 23/01/2007 19:08
- File:Visit of Minister-Mentor, former Prime-Minister of Singapore.jpg Canon Canon EOS 20D 09/05/2007 17:19
- File:Elabuga Customs Terminal.JPG SONY DSC-H1 22/08/2007 14:00
- File:Administrative-Business Centre of SEZ Alabuga.JPG OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. SP500UZ 22/08/2007 20:53
- File:The SEZ "Alabuga" Customs terminal checkpoint.JPG SONY DSC-W30 13/09/2007 10:18
- File:"One Stop Shop" Administrative System 3.JPG Panasonic DMC-LZ7 14/12/2007 11:35
- File:First railway stock is reaching SEZ Alabuga.JPG SONY DSC-H1 16/05/2008 14:09
- File:Views of SEZ "Alabuga”.JPG OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. SP500UZ 25/05/2008 11:55
- File:Views of SEZ “Alabuga” 2.JPG OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. SP500UZ 25/05/2008 12:17
- File:Industrial site of ZAO "Polimatiz" - the resident of the SEZ "Alabuga".JPG SONY DSC-H1 27/10/2008 16:42
- File:"One Stop Shop" Administrative System.JPG (no EXIF)
- File:"One Stop Shop" Administrative System 2.JPG (no EXIF)
Thanks for your input. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, something is fishy here. These are not too expensive cameras, but no photographer usually has this many. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks PaterMcFly. OK, so I'll go ahead and tag the images with del requests. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
The buildings all have FOP problems, but the others are not so clear to me. However, the lack of comment from the uploader leaves us little choice.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I converted this file to SVG, which in case of a map is preferable to PDF. The SVG version can be found here.
Gladiool (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment deleting this destroys traceability; to speak of which, there does not seem to be any. Probably also the svg should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, required for source information. Kameraad Pjotr 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Ciutat Vella.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ciutat vella2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This map does not have a source. This is unlikely to be entirely own work. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Maps with no source. Very unlikely to be uploader's own basic work.