Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/29
 |
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}
Image appears at http://www.ucs.edu.my/index%20%28About%20UCS%29.html with same frame. Sure looks like a copyright violation to me. Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyright violation -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearly scanned from a book or pamphlet, but claimed as own work & released PD-self. Seems to me that without clarification of source and permission, we have to presume a copyvio. Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral until the source is found. Alexius08 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
Image appears at http://www.ie.edu.my/index%20%28About%20IE%29.html with same frame. Sure looks like a copyright violation to me. Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation: per del req
Source for image is fan site, and most like "lifted" from elsewhere Tabercil (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is a professional picture and I wonder what the real photographer will say if he/she sees it on WikiCommons. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
likely copyvio, image pulls up numerous results through Google image search Ebyabe (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Yup, per an article on InStyle magazine the image is originally from WireImage. Tabercil (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, proven copyvio. --Tabercil (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
wrong name, compare Category:Thomas_Adasch, thx --Martina Nolte (Diskussion) 11:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- now speedy, sorry-Martina Nolte (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: wrong name, compare Category:Thomas_Adasch, thx --Martina Nolte (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to upload tif, but couldn't see it, didn't know it had to be converted, so uploaded again, so it's a duplicate. IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: deletion request by uploader, see below
Spam/advertising OSX (talk • contributions) 11:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per spam. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Spam, out of scope. --Javier ME (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, Podzemnik (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment very bad quality too. Pitke (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, Podzemnik (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. This 2 yaer old photo should have been deleted long ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of the project scope, not used, Podzemnik (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. Podzemnik (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - previously deleted Quakewoody (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete An orphaned personal photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, not used, Podzemnik (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Useless image.Screenshot of a webpage (maybe under copyright) for an event. --Duch.seb (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Publicity, out of scope --Javier ME (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is clearly spam/advertising. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Spam, out of scope, Podzemnik (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Private photograph that is not used. Out of scope: Commons is not somebody's private photo album High Contrast (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. An orphaned personal photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, out of the scope, Podzemnik (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
not needed empty page, Category already exists --Pessottino (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete see Category:Players of Società Sportiva Calcio Napoli. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Redirected -- Deadstar (msg) 10:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is practically useless. Also, it is not used anywhere. Alexius08 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly scanned from a book or pamphlet, but claimed as own work & released PD-self. Seems to me that without clarification of source and permission, we have to presume a copyvio. Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, most probably copyvio, --Podzemnik (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Image appears at http://www.ie.edu.my/index%20%28About%20IE%29.html with same frame. Sure looks like a copyright violation to me. Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- speedy delete Its an obvious copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, Podzemnik (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Advertising/self-promotion Alexius08 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, self-promotion picture, Podzemnik (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio. It contains the logo of the World Heritage. 百楽兎 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted logo, Podzemnik (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
private image (not useful), out of project scope --Razvan Socol (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, Podzemnik (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete An orphaned, unidentifiable and personal photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal image, unused, Podzemnik (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, out of scope, Podzemnik (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, out of scope, Podzemnik (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, out of scope, Podzemnik (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Extremely low quality; I cannot imagine a picture like this being used in any educative way, save poor photography. Pictures of Paint horses, bucking horses, and bay tobianos do exist, all in higher resolution and way better quality. --Pitke (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -- IANEZZ (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Advertising/self-promotion in description Alexius08 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, promotional content with no foreseeable educational use. –blurpeace (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me there are plenty of replacement photos for this image here So, there is no reason to keep this failed photo. Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete License on flickr All Rights Reserved. -Nard the Bard 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploader never typed in a {{Flickrreview}} at upload and today there is no access to the original flickr photo. Leoboudv (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware it was necessary to type in {{Flickrreview}}. I thought the bot picked up Flickr links, which it did, but it took 9 months to do so. Is there a bug in the system here? When I uploaded it, the image on Flickr was licensed there under CC-BY-SA-2.0, as stated on the image page. I have made over 1,000 edits on Commons, a large number of them image uploads without significant problems (apart from other users' incorrect information). I've been an admin on wikipedia since July 2006, and have over 34,000 edits: see w:User:Tyrenius. Trusted users can certify Flickr uploads on Commons. There is no reason to doubt my word that this image was originally licensed as stated. Ty 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- No the bot is not broken - but it is only designed to check images that has this template. The template is added automatically if you use one of the upload with User:Flickr upload bot. If you upload image manually you have to add the template manually. Problem is that how should the bot know that an image is from Flickr if it does not have this template? I used my bot to find images that had the word "Flickr" somewhere on the page but did not have a Flickr-review template. It did find a lot of files that should be checked but it also found a lot of files that did not need a review (example files where someone just wanted to mention that there was similar files on Flickr). But it could be done if someone will take the time to design a good script.
- Ok that was a lot of talk. Yes trusted users can certify Flickr uploads but even if you are an admin or a trusted user it is always good to request a review when uploading. To become a "trusted user" you have to be an admin or to have "passed a test". You have made a lot of edits and is an admin on enwiki so I think it should be easy for you to become "trusted user" here on Commons. I therefore suggest you ask to be a trusted user and that we keep this image with your review. --MGA73 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Following your suggestion, I have placed a request at Commons_talk:Flickr_files/reviewers#User:Tyrenius. I know it is best for trusted users to still ask for a review, so there is independent corroboration. However, I hope this could be an exception, if I am given the trusted user status, and if not, then I guess the file will have to be deleted, which would be a shame. Ty 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think a
Keep is appropriate now but wish a {{Flickrreview}} had been ordered. Its unfortunate that such situations arise. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. I will check my other uploads. I wonder what can be done to avoid this situation with other users in future. Ty 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Tyrenius will no doubt be approved for reviewer status and then he can review his own file xD -Nard the Bard 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have been approved for reviewer status.[1] Thanks to all for this trust. I can't read up on the procedures right now, but plan to do so in the next 24 hours and will mark this file as reviewed per users' comments above. Ty 06:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now reviewed.[2] Ty 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: This DR can be closed as a keep now. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Saatchi_Gallery_County_Hall_photo_by_djrue.jpg&diff=32783945&oldid=32552647){kind=link}
Kept. Kept as Ty is a trusted user. MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope; doesn't illustrate any of a) tattoos b) tongue piercing c) alcohol culture d) sexual behavior clearly enough to be educative. As a cleavage picture it'd be ok cropped, but don't we already have quite enough of those? Only used in the user namespace and the de.wikipedia "Village pump". Pitke (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) --Pitke (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Does illustrate those things and is in use. No reason to delete. -Nard the Bard 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't illustrate clearly enough to be educative I say. The tongue piercing is covered by the hair (and we already have many good pictures of tongue piercings); the tattoos are covered by shoulder straps (dittoes for these pics too)... Pitke (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
speedy keep It's being used - period - --Simonxag (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Nominator draws request back. Pitke (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. - The nominator withdrew the request. —Dferg (disputatio) 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review and is barely used on 1 wikipedia article. Do we know if the uploader knew license was OK here? Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Leoboudv. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This photograph constitutes a derived work. The referenced ticket includes a permission by the photographer, not of the designers of the game set. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Image casebook#Board games. This image focuses on the game components, which does not qualify for de minimis. Jappalang (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW of commercial advertising Justass (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious derivative. Uploader had previously uploaded this image to Commons under a different file name and posted it to the subject Wikipedia page. I flagged it yesterday as a fair use image resulting in its deletion. --BrokenSphere 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- That street scene photo comes from Flickr with a Creative Commons 2.0 license. I guess I don't understand what is wrong. SaltyBoatr 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Photo license is correct and no problem with it, but main subject of this photo is 3'rd party commercial advertising which is copyrighted. In short: you are not allowed to photo someone's else work and claim own copyrights --Justass (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I was unaware of this nuance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how this process works, but to be clear, I am OK with and welcome the deletion of this image but I don't know how to delete this image. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- We just have to wait for an admin to take a look at the discussion and make the deletion. BrokenSphere 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how this process works, but to be clear, I am OK with and welcome the deletion of this image but I don't know how to delete this image. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as derivative work of a copyrighted advertisement, because FOP law of the US (sadly) covers only buildings. --Túrelio (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
it was only exercise for future download Raf-777 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- For something like this, as uploader, you can probably just use {{Speedydelete}} with a note explaining why you want it deleted. In any case, if you are coming to Commons:Deletion requests don't forget to add the {{Delete}} template to the image page. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________
Deleted / Uploader requested.--Fanghong (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, unless it was published at some time before 1978 and its copyright not renewed. Dated 1936, found at http://www.hannonelectric.com/AboutUs.html. In any case, claim of "own work" and license PD-self are blatantly wrong, unless user is in his/her 80s. Contribution like this suggests a reason to look at all the user's other contributions. Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Having taken a quick look through, all of this user's contributions may present similar issues. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
________________________________
Deleted / Copyvio.--Fanghong (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Question. How do we know that Doronef the uploader is Activestills? This looks like a copyright violation. Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________
Deleted / Non-free Flickr license. --Fanghong (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No useful educational purpose. SchuminWeb (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If it is not used in the author's userpage within 1 week, then delete. Until then, wait. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
______________________
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
_________________________________
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shockingly poor quality, superseded by other versions This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
____________________________________________
Deleted / Low quality duplicate.--Fanghong (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
terrible quality, made by hand in paintbrush, not used Faigl.ladislav (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment no need to vote on your own request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not used and not useful. Unacceptable visual quality. --Egg (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Crazy. --Orange.man (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's a joke? --Formol (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Bad quality, GIF format?! --Daniel Baránek (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment OK, it's not the most professionally done map. But as far as I can see it's the only one with the final placements noted on it (in Category:Eurovision 2008). If someone took the effort to type in (rather than write) the numbers & give a little explanation of these numbers in the description), perhaps it would be more acceptable to the above voters. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
________________________________________________________
Deleted / Low quality duplicate.--Fanghong (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
not useful, terrible quality, cartographic wrong colours, labels confused --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not used, unacceptable quality. Miraceti (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Bad map. --Orange.man (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Rather use a better map with the description out of the image. --Javier ME (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete terrible colours, crazy labels,.... --Formol (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
_____________________________________
Deleted / Low quality and redundant.--Fanghong (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
NE individuals /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. All other contributions of this user have been deleted as copyvios, and this one looks suspect as well. Tineye finds a variation of it as an ad on a Chinese site. Latebird (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Too many copyvio notices on user's talkpage. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Leave picture on site if picture is an accurate depiction of a Mongolian girl. If there is no direct complaint from the copyright holder, or there is no proof of a copyright violation, suggesting removal by possible past indiscretion of poster does not dictate a copyright violation in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.99.113 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Commons only keeps truly free material. "Nobody complained about it" is not a valid argument to keep. There is very reasonable doubt about the coyright status of this image, and in such a case, it must be deleted unless verified. --Latebird (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Tekstman (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- If there is proof of the violation, please use {{Copyvio}}. Pitke (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio Tekstman (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unclear if this ever had a free license. If it did, someone needs to check the deleted file at en.wiki to make sure. -Nard the Bard 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It had a {{pd-self}} by en:User:LinguisticDemographer. -- Mentifisto 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well then the OTRS pending isn't really necessary and should be removed. However it also appears someone is using the file to test their bot. Whoever closes this request should pay attention to this because the bot is going to slap a no permission on the file. -Nard the Bard 02:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn, description updated. Self-close. -Nard the Bard 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never had to this before, but... this is an exact duplicate of File:Tareq_and_Michaele_Salahi_with_Barack_Obama.jpg uploaded 4 days after the first. The uploader removed the dupe tag. -Nard the Bard 13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not an exact copy. This is the original from the official White House stream on Flickr, with the extended Metadata description. It says something about Copyrights. In a controversial situation like this one that is very important, and should under no circumstance be ignored JdH (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yar, might be best to delete the other one. -Nard the Bard 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I've been looking back and forth between the two images and they seem pixel-by-pixel identical. I don't see a point in having two copies of the same image. Valley2city (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I already mentioned, the difference is in the Metadata, please scroll down and take a close look at the section on "Copyright". That is very significant, and needs to be preserved. However, it is lost in the other copy JdH (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- ?? - the other one is deleted - this discussion can be closed 88.65.195.212 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Moot. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept - not a duplicate anymore (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
unused, no useful description; bad quality Frédéric (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep based on above nomination, a little detective work was all that was needed to workout what the file is, might need to look into freedom of panorama in Argentina though as the sculptor appears to be alive, so might need to delete on the basis of being a copyvio.KTo288 (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not permanently situated, so very unlikely exempted by FOP. However, the uploader had not been notified - I will do that now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acorde.jpg: unused, no useful description; bad quality
This is the only image from this flickr account and there is no evidence at all that it was ever freely licensed. It is licensed very restrictively with an NC and ND creative commons license. Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just send a mail to the Flickr-user. If we get no respons within a week I agree we should probably delete. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No answer so far. I just made a note on original uploaders page . Maybe he knows somthing. --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No proof image was ever free. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree Flickr image.Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Produced by the Nazi government between 1943 and 1945([3]) so not yet PD in Germany. Current license not correct. -Nard the Bard 13:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete False license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation Malpass93 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, probably some official Barca wallpaper. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This file is copyrighted, see the license agreement kosmosnimki.ru --Виктор В (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Watermarked and copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by The Evil IP address: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vid iz kosmosa.jpg: This file is copyrighted, see the license agreement kosmosnimki.ru
I can't see a CC license on the source website, and the uploader on the source website is certainly not the copyright holder of this material. Eusebius (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- http://beeldengeluidwiki.nl/index.php/Beeld_en_Geluid_wiki:Info Here you find the licensing info. This all comes from a Dutch broadcasting community. Edoderoo (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- "A Dutch broadcasting community"? Who has copyright over this material, and thus is entitled to release it under a CC licence? I guess it is the broadcasting company, which one is it and when did they gave permission to release? --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- KeepIs a offical site from a dutch archive, its licensed:
- Bij hergebruik of verspreiding dient de gebruiker de licentievoorwaarden van dit werk kenbaar te maken aan derden. De beste manier om dit te doen is door middel van een link naar deze webpagina: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/
- So please close as keep, if we are going to make the discussion about if the archive has the rights we could delete the fotothek and other archives also. Huib talk 09:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why, the Fotothek are also unsourced pictures released under CC by master students? --Eusebius (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, Fotothek is also a archive like bundesarchive that release the material under a free license, why nominate for deletion when a Dutch Archive decides to do so also ? Huib talk 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, hum...Because the image does not come from their archive but from an external contributor?? --Eusebius (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't uploaded by a external contributor, its uploaded by a staff member according to the userpage. So its just a picture from a archive placed online, why delete? Huib talk 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- She was an intern, but you're probably right anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't uploaded by a external contributor, its uploaded by a staff member according to the userpage. So its just a picture from a archive placed online, why delete? Huib talk 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have spoken (onwiki on beeldengeluidwiki) with Rene Koenders, those images are released to be used with a free CC-by-SA license, this license is clearly put on their website, so their should be no issue at all and this image should be kept for us to be used on wikipedia. They have many many more pictures we are still missing on the Dutch wikipedia (and maybe on other language projects as well), so this site can be a nice resource for wikipedia in the near future. Edoderoo (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have also come across an image from that website (File:WillemRuis.JPG) - would it be worth creating a template stating that it came from there etc, as I believe (like Edoderoo) that the site could be a very good resource for commons. (Please feel free to paste comment to more useful location). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the WillemRuis image myself. It would for sure be a good idea to create a template, as I plan to take over like a picture a day from there ... or more, if I get the time for it. Edoderoo (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, hum...Because the image does not come from their archive but from an external contributor?? --Eusebius (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - released on a free license by the site of the archives of Dutch Public Service broadcasting (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Qwertyus as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Beeld en Geluid's license terms state that CC BY-SA 3.0 only applies to photos that explicitly carry a notice to this effect in their description. That is not the case for this picture. Yann (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Village pump#License problem with files taken from Beeld en Geluid (NL Institute for Sound and Vision). Qwertyus (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not satisfied of the google translation of the license terms. Can a Dutch speaker take a look at this? @Natuur12: of @P199: maybe? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Contacted Beeld en Geluid. Please give them some time to respond so we can sort this out. Multichill (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Multichill, have you heard anything? Reading the license terms which state smaller formats and own images by Beeld and Geluid, with explicit notice are free. Archive images (with high res) are not free, that is stated in the license there. So if there's no reaction I think we should delete the given file. Basvb (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Contacted Beeld en Geluid. Please give them some time to respond so we can sort this out. Multichill (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted - unclear copyright status. --JuTa 20:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Italy, and this is a modern building IANEZZ (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 09:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Italy, and this is a modern building -- IANEZZ (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, focus of the image is not the building. Kameraad Pjotr 09:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Italy, and this is a modern building -- IANEZZ (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Just to point out this is a 1966 church designed by Eng. Ezio Mattivi -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is a village square. It is a mountain. It is not an architecture photo of a work by Mattivi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, focus of the image is the square, not the building. Kameraad Pjotr 09:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This Waffen SS poster would have been made between 1940-1945 and should still be copyrighted...unless someone has other views Leoboudv (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that anyone would claim copyright for a nazi-poster made during WW2. --KEN (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't count on it, the rights to Mein Kampf are still exercised. I'd say we'd have to Delete --Simonxag (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't count on it, the rights to Mein Kampf are still exercised. I'd say we'd have to
Deleted, lacks suitable permission, still protected. Kameraad Pjotr 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The image has no encyclopedic value. Alexius08 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Its a picture of a company logo. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
possible Flickr washing, only users upload. At first image was licensed as BY-NC-SA, few minutes after image was marked as failed reviewing, license was changes to BY-SA. Besides I have found very similar photo here Justass (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So what? I uploaded it to both sites, flickr (where I changed the license to BY_SA, as allowed) & facebook site --Erikire (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please upload original photo with EXIF data or maybe you have more photos from same concert --Justass (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, Flickr washing, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No useful educational purpose. SchuminWeb (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Seriously? Its a corporate logo, of course it has educational purpose.
Deleted, out of project scope and copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This image of a modern art work could not be in Public domain unless the photographer directly gets a permission to publish it from the original artisan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=328430900&oldid=328426049 --Caspian blue 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not art work. It is a vase for flowers made of copper. If this needs to be deleted, we need to delete every decorated item we have a photo of. The upload page says that we can submit "useful or non-artistic objects (tools, dinner plates, etc.) " Is everything with a design on it artwork??? If so, there are few, if any, utilitarian objects we can submit pictures of.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons has a whole bunch of vase photos at Category:Vases.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#Mexico.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#Mexico. Note Mexico does not require a work to be permanently situated, only that it be visible from a public place. -Nard the Bard 23:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I assume it's a broad enough definition of public place to be applicable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have no information on the state of Mexico's law on the matter. Some countries exclude works in museums, but in the absence of information to the contrary I'd call this a public place :p -Nard the Bard 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- The work is NOT exhibited in a museum, but purchased by the uploader. Therefore, it is a commercial product. I checked the FOP#Mexico before nominating for deletion.--Caspian blue 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have no information on the state of Mexico's law on the matter. Some countries exclude works in museums, but in the absence of information to the contrary I'd call this a public place :p -Nard the Bard 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I assume it's a broad enough definition of public place to be applicable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP, qualifies as a work of art. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-free OS? ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The OS might not be free, but the concepts are readily recongnized with the given OS. Non-free OS does not seem like a decent reason to justify deleting this, nor is there argument given other than the terse "non-free OS?" comment.
- Delete the icons shown are copyrighted (and in at least one case trademarked) by Apple, and therefore ineligible for relicensing under a free license. According to Commons:Screenshots#Software, software screenshots must be of a "free program with a completely free skin". Unless Apple has completely open-sourced Finder and all it's icons, this image is in violation of Commons:Licensing and should be deleted.
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Author (Kálmán Tihanyi) died in 1947 so I believe that this is copyrighted until 2017 when it will enter the public domain Peripitus (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The guy who uploaded it declared it his "own work" which is obviously not true, and didn't tell us his actual source, without which it's hard to verify; it's possible the patent is from a country that puts such into the public domain, but there's no way to check. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Derivative from http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x79/nthach1/cosmonaut.jpg . The current source information has been given by the latest user to have processed the file, but he's not the original uploader and I doubt he would claim copyright over the original file. Eusebius (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sign is the State award of the USSR. The state awards of the USSR are in PD and it is not important from what sources the given image has arrived. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The medal itself is PD but the photograph generates a new copyright. --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are not right. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The medal can be described as double-sided relief 2D-work, not full 3D; the photographing under direct viewpoint for such work is reproduction (воиспроизведение) in Ru-Copyright Law and doesn't create new copyright. Alex Spade (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is intrinsically three-dimensional. The relief is its main feature, so I don't agree with your analysis. However, if the closing admin considers that it is actually 2D, the picture can simply be kept with {{PD-old|PD-RU-exempt}} (regardless of Russian law about the issue), but it must be properly sourced and acknowledge the original photograph (and, if possible, photographer). --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is 3D-object, but bilateral relief 2D-work (game of lights and shadows). The painting/drawing/photoimage is also 3D-object (in real, non-digital life), but single-sided painted, drawn or photographed 2D-work (game of colors). Alex Spade (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Independently from the outcome of the debate, I quite don't understand what your point is here. There is a big difference about the two examples you give. In the case of a relief, the "game of lights and shadows" gives liberty to the photographer, who can choose different lightings to create different shadows, for instance. In the case of a photograph, in which the work of art itself (independently from its support) is 2D (whereas the work of art in a medal is the relief, therefore 3D, and cannot be conceived independently from the material) and if a second photographer wants to reproduce the photograph in a faithful fashion, he doesn't have the option of create new shadow effects or to take a different point of view. The case of the medal is borderline and can be debated for a long time, but in the case of the painting, for instance, the mere presence of the frame excludes this PD-Art reasoning. More specifically, if it is not ok for a coin, I don't see how it could be ok for a medal. Having found this new clear argument in a Commons official policy, I must re-affirm my initial position and vote Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The possible difference (the liberty of "game of lights and shadows") between photographing in direct viewpoint of painting and relief 2D-work is insignificant. The difference between photographing and scanning is very more, more significant. We (you) can't decide/prove is this image photo or scan? The scanning does not create new copyright. Alex Spade (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Independently from the outcome of the debate, I quite don't understand what your point is here. There is a big difference about the two examples you give. In the case of a relief, the "game of lights and shadows" gives liberty to the photographer, who can choose different lightings to create different shadows, for instance. In the case of a photograph, in which the work of art itself (independently from its support) is 2D (whereas the work of art in a medal is the relief, therefore 3D, and cannot be conceived independently from the material) and if a second photographer wants to reproduce the photograph in a faithful fashion, he doesn't have the option of create new shadow effects or to take a different point of view. The case of the medal is borderline and can be debated for a long time, but in the case of the painting, for instance, the mere presence of the frame excludes this PD-Art reasoning. More specifically, if it is not ok for a coin, I don't see how it could be ok for a medal. Having found this new clear argument in a Commons official policy, I must re-affirm my initial position and vote
- The medal is 3D-object, but bilateral relief 2D-work (game of lights and shadows). The painting/drawing/photoimage is also 3D-object (in real, non-digital life), but single-sided painted, drawn or photographed 2D-work (game of colors). Alex Spade (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is intrinsically three-dimensional. The relief is its main feature, so I don't agree with your analysis. However, if the closing admin considers that it is actually 2D, the picture can simply be kept with {{PD-old|PD-RU-exempt}} (regardless of Russian law about the issue), but it must be properly sourced and acknowledge the original photograph (and, if possible, photographer). --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal itself is PD but the photograph generates a new copyright. --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(indent reset) I can hardly believe it is a scan, for I have never seen a scan with a light not coming from front. However, if we accept your ignorance, we must conclude that we don't know whether the copyright status of the file is ok or not, and therefore delete it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- We don't really know, has this file made by me or smb. other, and let's delete it. If we cann't segregate scanning (absolutely non-creative work) and photographing (creative work in view of certain conditions) in such cases, in what do we see the original and creative work, which can be copyrighted? Alex Spade (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The limit is always blurry and depending on the countries. The rules on Commons are based on the US jurisprudence as applicable in the state of Florida. This explains the details in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag but I must say I'm not a specialist of scans and copyright (in the US). --Eusebius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius is clearly going too far regarding this particular medal image. There is absolutely no 3D features in this medal image. It is absolutely straightforward. No play of light, no angles. No artistic creation to be copyrighted. Discussion whether it is a scan or not, is pointless here. What matters in copyright law is whether there is artistic work done here or not, and there is none. It is plain two-dimensional image, therefore I support Alex Spade's position here. The image should stay. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- But the official Commons policy on coins negates this reasoning, which I would be ok to accept otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NONESENCE, this is PD Russia as much as PR USSR. It is not matter at all where this badge or image or photograph came from. It is belongs to State first of all, Not to any photographer. --Kwasura (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're confusing the medal with the photograph of the medal. The question here is whether the photograph gets a new copyright, and the answer is that it does. --Eusebius (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission from the photographer. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It appeasr that the author of this file is Betsy Crowfoot not the uploader Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Further information about this may be found on an Editor's request on English Wikipedia at [4]. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The uploader has admitted that Betsy Crowfoot is the author, and the image was uploaded in error [5]. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "This is my photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Squall.jpg I would like full photo credit please otherwise to have it removed. The person who posted it can verify that it is my photo. Thank you, BETSY CROWFOOT" So since they mentioned the name no need to delete I assume. Kasaalan (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Image under license CC-BY-NC not compatible with commons. --Duch.seb (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I am the photographer, and I have licensed this photograph for Wikimedia under CC-BY, as listed in the file metadata. The CC-BY-NC license is used for my other work, in my PicasaWeb gallery. Is it going to be a problem to have my photographs available under two different creative commons licenses? I am happy to spend my time contributing my photography to Wikimedia Commons, but not if I'm going to have to deal with erroneous deletion requests. Fuzzynerd (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no indication here that the license shall be CC-BY-NC, how comes the nominator claims this? It's of course acceptable to use a different license on a different project (although one would be stupid to accept an image under a cc-by-nc license if it is also avaiable under cc-by, but that is their problem). --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. As the license is now the same on Picasa there is no more problem. I had requested deletion of the file because I cannot know if the uploader on commons was really the same person that the uploader on Picasa, even if they have the same name. Duch.seb (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per PaterMcFly. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As low quality as to be completely noneducative (unless discussing poor photography). --Pitke (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's with great displeasure that I nominate this image for deletion, for I just wrote an article about the architect Meili for the German Wikipedia, and the Centro Svizzero is one of Meili's most important buildings. However, it is located in Italy. And there's no freedom of panorama in Italy according to Commons:FOP. So, sadly, this seems to be a clear case for deletion. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you nominating this for deletion because of the statue, or the building? Because the building does not seem to be any great artistic work such that this photograph conveys any copyrightable artistic detail. -Nard the Bard 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was not aware that buildings need to be "great artistic works" to be copyrighted in Italy. And anyway, this building (designed by the architects Armin Meili (from Switzerland) and Giovanni Romano (from Italy), built 1949-1952), even though you may not think it exciting, is considered to be a great artistic work, an important example of Swiss post-war modernism. At least the architecture portal ArchINFORM says: "eines der bedeutendsten Werke nicht nur des Architekten sondern der Schweizer Nachkriegsmoderne insgesamt" (translated: "one of the most important works not only of the architect but also of Swiss post-war modernism as a whole"). The creators of the building aren't dead for more than 70 years, I don't know about the statue. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but is any of that genius in this picture, or are they speaking more of the interior? -Nard the Bard 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- They're speaking of the building as a whole. The simple, clear forms of modern architecture haven't to be of less artistic value than something flamboyant. Still, as said before: as far as I know, a "great artistic work" or "genius" isn't required for copyright protection. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but is any of that genius in this picture, or are they speaking more of the interior? -Nard the Bard 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was not aware that buildings need to be "great artistic works" to be copyrighted in Italy. And anyway, this building (designed by the architects Armin Meili (from Switzerland) and Giovanni Romano (from Italy), built 1949-1952), even though you may not think it exciting, is considered to be a great artistic work, an important example of Swiss post-war modernism. At least the architecture portal ArchINFORM says: "eines der bedeutendsten Werke nicht nur des Architekten sondern der Schweizer Nachkriegsmoderne insgesamt" (translated: "one of the most important works not only of the architect but also of Swiss post-war modernism as a whole"). The creators of the building aren't dead for more than 70 years, I don't know about the statue. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
{{vd per nom. The image could be cropped down to the monument but we have plenty of pictures of that already. --Simonxag (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If this is Anne Pareuil on the photograph, who is the photographer? Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We have a photo of Roger Ebert that he uploaded, and one of Lydia Cornell that she uploaded, what makes this any different? -Nard the Bard 22:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe this one can be considered as taken on behalf of Mrs Pareuil (although to me, it looks extracted from a larger, possibly group picture which, if confirmed, could hardly be attributed to her), but she also has uploaded several other pictures (like pictures of her on stage) which I refuse to believe that she automatically gets copyright for. --Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Eusebius. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.caffemontenegro.info/ is not a governmental source. Eusebius (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, maybe it is? I might have been mistaken... I can't tell by myself, maybe it's the ministry of tourism. --Eusebius (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's the interview with the Mayor of Rozaje :-/. 92.36.147.127 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we close this discussion now? Rave92 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is the source website a public website or not? If you can't provide evidence or permission we'll have to delete the file. --Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Images of Expert19612005
editFile:Odrahb`s hodensack.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Odrahb`s hodensackinfusion.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Odrahb.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hodensack .JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Expert19612005 .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hodensack-.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Hodensack (5).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hodensack_(4).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hodensack(expert19612005).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hodensack-Hodensackinfusion-.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Hodensack.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Hodensackinfusion.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Scrotum.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)File:Hodensack.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
..JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
..JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
..JPG&action=history){kind=link}
..JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
..JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
..JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
..JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
..JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
“The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images (see also Censorship COM:PS#Censorship)” Besides: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people ([6]) Otourly (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Otourly. Diti the penguin — 11:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Complex question, which might require that we split this request into individual requests for each file:
- Delete for some images, for instance File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG, as we already have images of a Prince Albert piercing that are of a better quality (though this particular case features a particularly large stretch, possibly a 00-gauge, which we do not seem to have, so it might remain debatable).
- Keep for some images at least. For instance, documenting saline solution injections as a sexual practice is a legitimate endeavour, well distinct from the "theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography" case. Of course, we do not need all of them, but some might deserve keeping.
- Delete depending on the applicable US law: we might be required to have the names of proofs of identities of the subjects of the photographs -- see the Bmezine server migration to Canada. Note that this law might also apply to photographs from Abu Ghraib and from Guantanamo, what a wonderful world. Rama (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep all the pictures where the subject is not identifiable. These images are unusual and useful to document aspects of human sexuality: the fact that some may find them either pornographic or erotic is irrelevant. The only reason we get rid of penis pictures is that we have plenty and are bombarded with more low quality examples. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, per Simonxag. Some of these images illustrate less common forms of human sexuality. Delete the others. –blurpeace (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, as above; commons is not censored, the images cover topics where we do not have much material, if any, & the fact that the anatomy shots are all(/mostly?) of the same subject-person makes them more useful for some applications; it gives better definition of the subject as anatomy. also, the rationales given for deletion are weak. "photos of identifiable people" is invalid, the images are self-authored. "required to have proof of identity/age" is
questionable at best; the subject appears to be an adult male,laughable, the images are of an obviously adult (apparently young-middle aged) male, no reasons have been presented to suggest otherwise, & in this case suggesting that the subject might be a minor is absurd. also agreed that this should not be handled as a "bulk-request", the images can't be fairly grouped together for a mass-deletion nomination on any grounds other than: "they're all dirty pictures, all by the same BAD person!", which again violates "not censored", as well as "agf" Lx 121 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- btw: why don't people sign their comments? isn't that supposed to be part of the openness & transparency of the process on a wikiproject; as well as a basic courtesy? Lx 121 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Most pictures in this request are overshopped and of reduced quality and/or pretty much of no use. But there are exceptions: The picutres File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) and File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) are in use in the German Wikipedia, because these images are of better quality and illustrative for stretched genital piercings.--Lamilli (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, I've struck files that are in use or have already been deleted. Also, I've organized the request's comments for improved readability. –blurpeace (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Why do people always care about the fact that a picture is used or unused... especially when it comes to nudity or sexuality? Those pictures appear to be useful. At least it didn't need a mass DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: I deleted some of his uploads on the uploaders request. He was identifiable on these photos, I guess this is the reason for his request. --Polarlys (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Close. Many of these have already been deleted, either by Polarlys as stated above or as the result of other DRs. 3 of the remaining 5 images currently have their own DRs open. The other two (File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG & File:Prince Albert Piercings(expert19612005).JPG) are being kept. Rocket000 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Commons:Derivative works : copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work (SIMBA toy) which is not published under a free license. --Guil2027 (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I uploaded it here holding opinion, that baby-doll design is not creative and original enough to be copyrighted... The same opinion I aquired from Polish devision of Simba Toys by phone; I wasn't able to get that in written form :/ Anyone got a 70-yo doll to take picture? :) A.J. (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is this doll mass producted? I also agree there is not much originality in the doll. Esby (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought, there's not very much originality in Barbie doll, is it? A.J. (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Info The original doll was requested for speedy deletion; I attached it here. A.J. (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Info Relevant discussion on how the speedy deletion was handled: User talk:Blurpeace#Doll picture you deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work. Form of artwork, copyrighted by SIMBA toys. –blurpeace (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per [7]. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
