Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I do not find any release under a free license. --← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm new here. I thought screenshots can be used based on fair use. --Memasa (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently I should have chosen some other license. --Memasa (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Fair use is not allowed on Commons
vandalism by 61.88.131.227 -- — Jeff G. ツ 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
wrong filename; corrected pic uploaded --GiMa38 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
missing image file --134.96.231.113 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
undefined --122.34.65.31 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mattbuck: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Brittany_Suza_(brittsuza)_from_Flickr
notable act, possible copyright violation? not sure if this is the uploaders photograph.. --Missvain (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Speedily delete. Published on the web [1]. Copyright watermark. No metadata. No OTRS ticket. No evidence that uploader has anything to do with the rights. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
notable act, possible copyright violation? not sure if this is the uploaders photograph.. --Missvain (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol Infrogmation (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The source is given as "Internet", and it does appear that this is a copyright image (complete with name) found somewhere on the internet and not the uploader's own work. --DAJF (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. One does not become the copyright holder of other people's work by finding a copy on the internet. Infrogmation (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
offensive --Coldface (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure why this would be considered offensive - there are many more explicit sexual photos on Wikipedia; mine is an artistic, black-and-white photograph, shot in nature, showing the distinctive Asian shape of pubic hair. Is the perceived "offense" noting that the model is Asian? If so, please explain why that is offensive.
Vulgar Sarveshwar Thakur (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Your picture does not depict any culture or art in particular. Its just a nude woman of some 'race' that you have explicitly mentioned. This image does not serve any purpose. I hope it is removed.
yah the image does not serve any purpose nor its used in any articles and it's indecent not sure if i would call it artistic .--Coldface (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep COM:NOTCENSORED — raeky (talk | edits) 23:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. That you consider it "vulgar" noted. No criteria for deletion proposed. Infrogmation (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope --Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom; orphan, no evidence of notability nor in scope usefulness. Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
unused promotional image of an unknown band - out of scope --Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope --Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No source or metadata. Used elsewhere in reduced form with a TPE logo on it and no attribution of en.wp uploader - possibly both retrieved from the same (unknown) source? ---mattbuck (Talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- This was uploaded by user:Fkmd not me, I just copied it here from en.wp and added the description. I've left a note on Fkmd's commons talk page, but it would be good if you could drop him a note on his en.wp talk page too. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done so now. Doesn't appear he's edited in any real capscity since January. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Fkmd (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry what have I done now? Yeah this is my picture, am confused as to why its got a deletion tag on it?
- Because I found it elsewhere (at lower res) unattibuted to you. If you say it's yours I'll AGF and withdraw. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
invalid transfer from flickr --Taavetti (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: No_License
The client is GPL, not the server software and not their website (see (C) 2008-2009 Canonical Group Ltd.) Matt (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlicensed Scan from Malaysian defence magazine ("Tempur" or "Perajurit"). NoCitNeed (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can u maybe translate the malayan text from the original?--Sanandros (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the description ("ringkasan") just says what is going on in the picture: "Members of the Marine Combat Unit conduct a tactical boarding of a vessel in order to combat enemy forces.". The licence ("Lesen hak cipta") claims this picture to be public domain with no copyrights attached. This is untrue, as this is copyrighted content scanned from one of the two aforementioned Malaysian defence magazines. --NoCitNeed (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
looks like factory advertisment picture, can be found on several pages via google Typ932 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
most propably nofree scanned auto advertisment Typ932 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
very poor quality, no usage as far as i can see Catfisheye (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The subject has complained about his signature been on commoms per OTRS #: 2010070610045141. Brian (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I am not familiar with New Zealand's copyright law, but that law seems to have several points similar to that of the UK and Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag advises against uploading UK signatures. So, this one should probably be deletd. Besides, I am not convinced that publishing signatures of living persons against their will is a good idea. In any case, it seems to me that Commons should have an explicit warning, worded more or less around the lines of this warning, but integrated into the PD-signature template, so that it can actually be visible by potential reusers directly on the description pages of the images of those signatures that are hosted under a PD claim. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
userpic that is un-used, out of scope, etc. --Missvain (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
out of scope and obviously uploaded for promotional purposes (re: description). --Missvain (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
non-notable person, image not being used in any wiki's --Missvain (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Non-notable photo of man, no description provided. Not used in any wiki. "Not-Realistically useful for an educational purpose" --Missvain (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Image of non-notable/unknown band. No-wiki connections. --Missvain (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
After a bit of research, I belive this is being for primarily self-promotion. I do not think this is here for educational purposes. --Missvain (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused. Out of scope. Possible copyvio. Copy of the banner of a website [2]. No OTRS ticket. No evidence that uploader owns rights. Was perhaps used for a small town's electoral campaign two and a half years ago in a fr-Wikipédia article deleted as promotional [3]. (Subject was elected mayor of the place anyway [4].) -- Asclepias (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (Private image collection). --Missvain (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not a terrible photo, but without description/identification it is useless. Unless information is added and potential usefulness explained,
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis. --Missvain (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Image is private image, Commons is not a photo album. Notice that file of same name was uploaded previously at this deletion log although it may not be the same file. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: By Yann. Natuur12 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This image looks scanned, possible copyright violation? --Missvain (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
advert? self-promotion? no use on any wikis. --Missvain (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
poor quality image of unknown group of people. --Missvain (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
another unidentified school group. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis. --Missvain (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis --Missvain (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis --Missvain (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No wiki links. Possible Advertising or self-promotion. --Missvain (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
"Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." --Missvain (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. --Missvain (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Unknown drummer of unknown band. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis --Missvain (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis either! --Missvain (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lake_Teletskoye should be used instead --Obakeneko (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Changed to Category Redirect Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis. --Missvain (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used on any Wikis. --Missvain (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum or storage unit. Not used on any Wikis. --Missvain (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Divine_Mercy_%28Adolf_Hyla_painting%292007-08-16.jpg Crochet.david (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Orca167221 (talk · contribs). Is there something new for Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. All images deleted by Orca167221 (talk · contribs). Reasons: poor quality, misleading information provided, out of scope, COM:PORN High Contrast (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What? What does this mean??? Any image using a wide angle lens in France is not allowed to be published in WikiPedia? Please elaborate more detailed. Andreas Tille (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. See COM:FOP#France. The architect of the building owns the copyright. This is a derivative work of the copyright. In France and certain other countries, you photographs of such works may not be freely used. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (speedy delete, according to {{France-cv}}) ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (speedy delete according to ({{France-cv}}) ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but it is not panorama. Eole99 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Freedom of panorama first, in order to understand what is meant by no "freedom of panorama in France". --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (speedy delete according to {{France-cv}}) ALE! ¿…? 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://www.elstein.com/radiators-panel-rod.php, concretely from -> http://www.elstein.com/products/SHTS-1-electric-IR-heater.php. Electron <Talk?> 10:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
B&W Dupe of File:Russian Empire-Full coat of arms.png --DieBuche (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Converted speedy. Original reason was: "no longer used in wikibook it was created for, also has terrible flickering!" --TheDJ (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
speedy -> discussion, original reason: "Unidentifiable, tiny" --TheDJ (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Amada44 talk to me 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- User stated that the image can be deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Commons+talk%3ADeletion+requests%2F×tamp=20100728163102&diff=prev
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Шрифт этого логотипа может быть защищен АП. Необходимо подтверждение. --Agent001 (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Although fonts as such are usually copyrighted, actual use is not - see en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts Rubin16 (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept per {{PD-textlogo}}. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
photo of a non-notable Mexican director (maybe a bit too young for this alleged profession to be true?), related article was deleted here en:Jacobo León for no notability Santosga (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. And with the above being said, "The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose," per deletion standards, and even "Advertising or self-promotion." Missvain (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - more informative and uploader-neutral versions of the political compass can be found in File:UK political compass.PNG and File:Political chart.svg Santosga (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Now undeleted as it is no longer unused (per request at my talk page). Stifle (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
No educative purpose --BrightRaven (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW. The so-calles Freedom Tower is a protected work of architecture. Not build = no FoP- --sугсго 14:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- But if someone else produced an artwork of it, would it be protected? Because this is not claimed to be a work of the development team. Ingolfson (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- That makes it a derivative work. However, once it's constructed... see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 120. Related discussion on en:File talk:Freedom Tower New.jpg. Their computer-rendered image of this tower is under fair use. Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope photo of a non-notable writer, related article was deleted here es:José Antonio Forzán for autopromotion Santosga (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agree. This file is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose," per deletion standards. Commons is not a photo album! Missvain (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Web resolution publicity shot. I doubt this is the uploader's own work. --J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
--189.160.20.247 15:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No good reason for deletion given → Kept. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
--189.160.20.247 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No good reason for deletion given → Kept. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No source, no author, no publication date. --feydey (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Permission is there, but in-scope-ness ? --DieBuche (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Head too small, too many claws on the front feet. --Conty (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The legs shaould not have knee caps. The frontegs are too thin, and the eyes too large. --Conty (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama (FOP) in France. --ALE! ¿…? 17:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a photograph of a photograph, and we don't have licensing information for the original photograph. The present photograph's information on Flickr and the Flickr file's metadata show that the photo was taken with an Apple iPhone on March 22, 2008 (the metadata has been stripped out of the file uploaded to Commons). Williams died in 1998, so the Commons file cannot be an original photo of her. The file File:Wendy O. Williams.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is cropped from this photo and has the same issues. --75.244.148.169 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
White text on transparent background immediately limits usefulness, but this also doesn't use the correct font. See File:NCIS Los Angeles 1 .svg for the correct version. --— Huntster (t @ c) 20:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
wrong file name, as a result in naming order, this track map was created, the real storm name was Delliah; Tropical Storm Ellen never existed in 1950 --Anhamirak (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope - Commons is not storage space for a company wiki. --Guandalug (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
license covers only official documents, not awards --Rubin16 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted advertisement. FOP does not apply as this is not permanently at this location. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was bitte heißt FOP? „Freedom of Panorama“? --Jocian (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Genau. Zu deutsch Panoramafreiheit. Gilt aber nur für Werke, die dauerhaft im öffentlichen Raum angebracht sind und nicht für Werbetafeln. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Tonyjeff claims: "Symbol of private organization" --DieBuche (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- FARC isn't a private organization, is a terrorist group. Besides the autor made it, --Rojasyesid (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is a very similar debate about the hezbollah flag [here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Hezbollah.svg] : I guess the problem is pretty much the same. Except that the Hezbollah has legal existence in Lebanon and can be contacted to obtain permission, while FARC-EP is declared terrorist by the US, European Union, Colombia etc. and, as such, any credit given to them, payment etc. would probably be illegal in those countries. So it is impossible that the FARC-EP will sue the Wikimedia foundation, and so there is no reason to try to respect their copyright, is that correct ? FWIW, the same argument is used for conserving the AUC logo, which is also from an organisation recognized as terrorist by most contries : see here --Sylvain2803 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept.per Sylvain DieBuche (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Futuretrillionaire as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this flag of a terrorist organization (see link I added right below this tag fo a list of terror groups) is blocked property (counts as non-free) in the U.S. INeverCry 21:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- The previous discussion failed to confront the issue that this is blocked property in America. The U.S. govt doesn't want us to use it at all. For more info, see this template: [5]. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons-FASTILY (TALK) 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete This file is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose," per deletion standards. Commons is not a photo album! Missvain (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 01:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Empty --Jolly Janner (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 01:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Empty --Jolly Janner (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 01:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Empty --Jolly Janner (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 01:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://www.elstein.com/radiators-panel-rod.php, concretely from -> http://www.elstein.com/products/FSR-1-electric-IR-radiator.php. Electron <Talk?> 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://www.elstein.com/radiators-panel-rod.php, concretely from -> http://www.elstein.com/Radiators-IOT-IPT.php. Electron <Talk?> 10:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks like you are right. Trycatch (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://www.elstein.com/radiators-panel-rod.php, concretely from -> http://www.elstein.com/products/FSR-1-electric-IR-radiator.php. Electron <Talk?> 10:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Procedural nomination - User:EugeneZelenko felt that based on the lack of EXIF data and the uploader's history, that the sourcing of this image as "Own work" is insufficient. I questioned his tagging of the image as having no source, so I started this deletion discussion in its place. --Powers (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I already asked this: WHAT MORE am I supposed to put as source than "own work"? Victor Kbça (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Same image is appeared there and created by design studio. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Head too small, eyes too large. Hindlegs too thick, too robust body. --Conty (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please stop asking for deletion of you own images all the time? Unless there are better alternatives, there's no reason for deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request; file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This image is completely confusing; I honestly have no idea what's going on here, and I know extruders well. There's no labels, but even if there were, it probably woudn't help, because the image is so abstract. --Wizard191 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 1. I didn't think these could be reasons for deleting. If they really are, I cannot convince anybody. I uploaded the drawing having used common sense. If this 'sense' is not quite 'common', I don't insist on keeping the the drawing. I don't use Commons frequently so I may not know the rules or habits on the justification.
- 2. I was glad when I found the image File:Dip coating.png because LaurensvanLieshout did it instead of me. The image is simple, abstract and has no labels. Anybody can explain the diagram in the article. I found it legal and very convenient. That's why I did the same with the file Extruder multplex.svg.
- 3. Wizard191, if you know the extruders well, you could replace the existing file Extruder multplex.svg with a better one... :-) (hopefully without labels to be able to use in multiple languages)--Kifoc (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- A lack of labels isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. However, when the image is so abstract that only the creator knows what it is, that becomes a problem, especially when it's meant to teach something. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note to closing Administrator:
If you decide to delete this image please notify the English Wikipedia WikiProject Star Trek. It is used on over 5,000 pages and to prevent disruption it will need to be replaced. Thank you
While this certainly is a shape, I think classifying it as "simple geometry" goes too far. There was, to my mind, signficant creative input involved in the design of this shape back in the 60s, and I am not convinced that {{Pd-shape}} applies. --Powers (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's stretching the definition of "triangle" almost to the breaking point, I think. Powers (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- @LtPowers: It all depends on what your definition of "simple" is. In terms of geometric patterns, three points connected by two convex and concave lines is not all that special, nor ornate. Do you have any evidence of "significant creative input", as I certainly haven't found any. Many of Jefferies' smaller designs like logos were created with little discernible vetting from higher-ups—blame it on the pressures of producing at the pace of television production. I can't even find much that mentions creating the delta shield as one of his accomplishments (creating the iconic starships take all the space). At the very least, no record I have seen still exists to document such. It's certainly what I would call a solid piece of simple design, but as to how many long nights were spent dreaming it up, it's not the Presbyterian logo. David Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know that effort is the metric we should be using. Designs that may not take long to render may still involve a lot of creativity in thinking them up and putting the pieces in just the right place. I admit I don't have evidence that Jeffries (en:Matt Jeffries for the interested layman) slaved over the design, but I don't think it's necessary. It's enough to look at it and see that there were a number of ways the design could have gone, and thus that several specific design choices were made in its crafting. That said, I'm not one to consider myself infallible; this is certainly one of those gray areas where reasonable people might disagree. I tend to favor erring on the side of caution, but I've been overruled before. Powers (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, the Star Trek logo is gray, and has a hollow circle around it. See [6] it is definitely very different. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know that effort is the metric we should be using. Designs that may not take long to render may still involve a lot of creativity in thinking them up and putting the pieces in just the right place. I admit I don't have evidence that Jeffries (en:Matt Jeffries for the interested layman) slaved over the design, but I don't think it's necessary. It's enough to look at it and see that there were a number of ways the design could have gone, and thus that several specific design choices were made in its crafting. That said, I'm not one to consider myself infallible; this is certainly one of those gray areas where reasonable people might disagree. I tend to favor erring on the side of caution, but I've been overruled before. Powers (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure complexity is the proper metric, either. I would rate the "delta" shield as having more creativity than the heartagram, but, again, I can see that reasonable people might disagree. Powers (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- And of course, another thing to consider is en:File:Prince logo.svg, which was determined to be copyrightable. So the gray area lies somewhere between the two. I think the delta shield falls on the Prince side, personally. Powers (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure complexity is the proper metric, either. I would rate the "delta" shield as having more creativity than the heartagram, but, again, I can see that reasonable people might disagree. Powers (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think I'd like to see an example of what this is supposedly a copyright infringement of. If we're talking about [7], I don't buy it; they're significantly different in all ways, besides the second one having a curved concave quadrilateral as part of the shape.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- The symbol appears all over the fiction. Originally, it was the symbol that appeared on the left chest of crew members' uniforms (although there were three variants of it, each with a different symbol inside) (see, for instance, [8]). Later, the symbol was incorporated into a commbadge for the sequel series (see, for instance, [9] and [10]). Powers (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_Florida.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Florida.jpg){kind=link}
_Florida.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Lt. Powers, do you know that there is a geometric shape called a delta shield? The Star Trek logo is based on that shape. There is also a car company that uses a Delta shield in their logo. Paramount Pictures and/or CBS do not own the polygon. They didn't invent it. This shape is famous because of Star Trek, but it wasn't invented by the producers of Star Trek. The image in question is a delta shield, the Star Trek logo is very different.
- The Star Trek logo is Silver, not yellow
- The logo is a curved delta shield and has either a Star in the center (Original Series) or a circle behind it (The Next Generation/Deep Space 9) or a hollow circle behind it (Voyager and late Deep Space 9 seasons)
- Officially, this isn't even the franchise logo, it is the in-universe symbol for Starfleet. The Delta Shield on commons is not even close to the Star Trek symbol.
I hope the explanation helps. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all. The originally appearance of this shape in Star Trek was as a gold emblem on Starfleet uniforms, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it only appears in silver. The shape is usually found with other embellishments, but this basic shape has been the constant throughout all incarnations of the series. And its use -- whether as the franchise logo or in-universe -- is irrelevant; what matters is that someone created it. Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "a geometric shape called a delta shield." It's not a polygon; it doesn't even resemble a polygon. If the car company you refer to is en:Pontiac, I trust you can see the obvious differences between this image and the Pontiac logo. Powers (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, although I daresay the Voyager commbadge is a problem regardless. I think I'll nominate that one now but wait on the others. Powers (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Note, the Voyager commbadge case is substantially identical to the case at Commons:Deletion requests/File:StarTrek Communicator-TNG.jpg, in which the argument for deletion was accepted; that's why I feel safe in nominating the Voyager image.) Powers (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, although I daresay the Voyager commbadge is a problem regardless. I think I'll nominate that one now but wait on the others. Powers (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Except the Starfleet delta isn't a polygon at all, not even a polygon with rounded corners as the Best Western logo is. Powers (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a quadrilateral with rounded sides. They weren't impressed by the W/crown at Best Western, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you ask ten people to draw "a quadrilateral with rounded sides", you'll get ten completely different pictures. Even if you were to specify the angles of each vertex and the length of each side, you'd still get very different results. Powers (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As for the first, sure, but the copyright office just said that they don't care about the differences. But once you've specified the angles and lengths, I seriously doubt you'd get very much difference; or that you'd really be comfortable with this done with straight lines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you ask ten people to draw "a quadrilateral with rounded sides", you'll get ten completely different pictures. Even if you were to specify the angles of each vertex and the length of each side, you'd still get very different results. Powers (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a quadrilateral with rounded sides. They weren't impressed by the W/crown at Best Western, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Except the Starfleet delta isn't a polygon at all, not even a polygon with rounded corners as the Best Western logo is. Powers (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not pass the Threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
gezeigtes Werk: im Bild sind mehrere Fotos bzw. fotoähnliche Bestandteile enthalten --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Diese Miniaturfotos sind aber fester Bestandteil des Gesamtwerks, dieses wurde wiederum von der zuständigen Agentur zur lizenzfreien Verwendung zur Verfügung gestellt. --Mintje (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wo ist das nachzulesen? Und was soll "lizenzfrei" bedeuten? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Es handelt sich hierbei um den Ausschnitt eines Spielbretts, das auch so im Handel erhältlich ist. Die Miniaturfotos sind Bestandteil des Grafikdesigns. Ich habe die zuständige Agentur selbst um diese Abbildung für die Wikipedia gebeten. Bei der jetzt gezeigten Version handelt es um einen Ausschnitt des gesamten Spielfelds, das mir als Abbildung vorliegt. Unter "lizenzfrei" verstehe ich die erlaubnisfreie Verwendung, also an nicht geknüpfte Bedingungen. --Mintje (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wer ist der Urheber der Miniaturfotos bzw. -grafiken? haben diese jeweiligen Urheber zugestimmt?
- Die Datei ist als GFDL / CC lizensiert, keinesfalls ohne Bedingungen.
- Welche Rechte besitzt die zuständige Agentur wirklich?
- Wurde auch der kommerziellen Nachnutzung durch Dritte zugestimmt? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ich verstehe, worum es dir geht, aber die Rechte liegen allein beim Rechteinhaber und das ist die Firma Hasbro. Auf der Webseite von Hasbro findet sich die für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zuständige Agentur Jeschenko MedienAgentur Koeln GmbH, diese habe ich angeschrieben und um die Abbildung gebeten. Die Lizenzart habe ich ausgewählt, damit die Firma namentlich genannt wird bei Nutzung des Bildes. Natürlich werden Abbildungen von Spielbrettern kommerziell durch 3. genutzt (Zeitschrift, Webshop). --Mintje (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Es handelt sich hierbei um den Ausschnitt eines Spielbretts, das auch so im Handel erhältlich ist. Die Miniaturfotos sind Bestandteil des Grafikdesigns. Ich habe die zuständige Agentur selbst um diese Abbildung für die Wikipedia gebeten. Bei der jetzt gezeigten Version handelt es um einen Ausschnitt des gesamten Spielfelds, das mir als Abbildung vorliegt. Unter "lizenzfrei" verstehe ich die erlaubnisfreie Verwendung, also an nicht geknüpfte Bedingungen. --Mintje (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wo ist das nachzulesen? Und was soll "lizenzfrei" bedeuten? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Mintje must send his permission to COM:OTRS, when it is received there and the result is positive, this image is to be kept. --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have sent the permission a week ago. --Mintje (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: OTRS pending as of today, more data required. --Guandalug (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Swedish movie poster from 1947, was used in Sweden less than 70 years old. Uploader has now changed license to Us PD-Pre1964, which i dont think should be valid in this case. AlphaZeta (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw another film poster here in WP where the issuer hasn't printed a copyright notice on the poster. The same would apply to the posters I've uploaded, I'll guess. Peter EA Lindström (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not first published in the U.S. without a copyright notice. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The copyright is declared with the publication, so it is not public domain as a Dutch government publication. Additionally the source says "reproduced" - thats not free enough for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Also note Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works) which pointed out (last comment) that the files from that source are not free for commercial reuse. Also the source is listed at Commons:Bad_sources#Netherlands_Ministry_of_Defence. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The following files should be deleted too;
- File:Giel Beelen aangekomen op Kamp Holland.jpg
- File:Uruzgan FM - Hanneke Eilander Kristel van Eijk.jpg
- File:2006-12-17 minister kamp bij 3fm tcm46-98120.jpg
- File:Annemieke Schollaardt Uruzgan FM interviewt.jpg
- File:Uruzgan FM live vanuit Kandahar.jpg
- File:Annemieke tcm46-86019.jpeg
- File:Uruzgan FM - Kristel van Eijk.jpg
- File:Uruzgan FM - Annemieke Schollaardt verlaat Uruzgan FM.jpg
Huhbakker (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Huhbakker (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
See OTRS #2010081110012531 for more information Huhbakker (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept, unless the OTRS team decides otherwise, this license seems valid. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Missing essentials informations : the author name (and date). The source is not really explicit. Maybe not in the PD (impossible to check without the information). A galon, VIGNERON * discut. 10:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Thanx BrightRaven for the source, is there another source for confirmation ? There is only 3 results on Google for Sani Ringayen (for comparaison "Guy Pignolet" the author of another unofficial flag of La Réunion has 3440 results).
- The most important for me : is there any source that the license is actually PD ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a reason for deletion, is it ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Rename As proved by the mentionned sources, this is only a "proposition of flag", not really a local flag (since it was not even allowed by the mayor of Saint-André). Schlum (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks the source brought out by BrightRaven (thanks to him) I modify slightly my affirmations. OK this is not a "flag of the Îles Eparses" as I wrongly had understood. But as far as I know this is a product of an "association" ("Association pour le Drapeau de la Réunion") whose leader, Sani Ringayen, brings nearly no Google result. Though ready to change my position if new informations are brought, I suspect this is a kind of vanity creation : as every holiday picture or every cat picture taken by Mr Somebody in the world does not enter in the educational aims of Commons, every visual creation by some gifted individual (or small group of people) has not to be included here. Hence I don't modify my vote, though modifying its motivation. Touriste (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the source, but neither this association nor it's leader are notable. Seems we have here an original research. Schlum (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Original research are not forbidden on Commons, in fact, there are welcome. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the source, but neither this association nor it's leader are notable. Seems we have here an original research. Schlum (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks the source brought out by BrightRaven (thanks to him) I modify slightly my affirmations. OK this is not a "flag of the Îles Eparses" as I wrongly had understood. But as far as I know this is a product of an "association" ("Association pour le Drapeau de la Réunion") whose leader, Sani Ringayen, brings nearly no Google result. Though ready to change my position if new informations are brought, I suspect this is a kind of vanity creation : as every holiday picture or every cat picture taken by Mr Somebody in the world does not enter in the educational aims of Commons, every visual creation by some gifted individual (or small group of people) has not to be included here. Hence I don't modify my vote, though modifying its motivation. Touriste (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Copyvio. Not free. Taken from the web. No evidence that the original author made it free. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Renaming
[edit]Beside deletion or not, the file name is wrong. I just rename File:Unofficial flag of Reunion.svg to File:Unofficial flag of Reunion (MLK).svg. I’m not totally fluent in english but I noticed that unofficial is wrong too (the flag could be official for the MLK for example). So what’s the best title ? "Proposed flag of Réunion by APDR" and "proposed flag of Réunion by MLK" ? Moreover, it’s appear that the APDR change is name several times (Shankara Yuva Kendra, then Shri Anjaneya Sabha then Association pour le Drapeau de la Réunion and now -apparently- « association réunionnaise de vexillalogie - association pour un emblème et une devise pour la Réunion » with -officialy- an error in his name and a confusion possible with the association réunionnaise de vexillologie). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Previously deleted and apparently recreated GPinkerton (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a vector version of the previous file. I believe it should be preserved due to it's factual nature. It is being used by the local government as their "de facto" flag, as the only official flag in Réunion is the french tricolore. It can thus be renamed if necessary to "Réunion Regional Council Flag" instead. Here and here it can be seen being flown by the Council. Kind regards. Germenfer (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Germenfer: The deleted file was also a vector SVG. If the image is used as a flag only by the local government, is it not more of a organizational logo or corporate "trademark"? And might that logo be copyrighted or otherwise restricted? GPinkerton (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copy vio - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:Jahgordo
[edit]All unused private images with no education value - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused images of Tortured Soul Dessico
[edit]unused personal images of user who didn't edit since 2007 Hekerui (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Seldonemrys
[edit]- File:Jaime Carranza Herrezuelo.jpg
- File:Desarrollo Vestuario Playa Carranza.JPG
- File:Esbozo Vestuario Playa Carranza.JPG
- File:Castillo carranza.jpg
- File:Esbozo Vestuario Playa Carranza2.JPG
All personal images of "Jaime Carranza Herrezuelo" (corresponding page was deleted here es:Jaime Carranza Herrezuelo for vanity), with a possible copyvio in File:Castillo carranza.jpg. All unused, uncategorized since 2007, and unusable - out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree for deletion, I have tried to make something out of it a few month ago. Valueless files. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all of it! These files is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose," per deletion standards. Commons is not a photo album! Missvain (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)