Commons:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from COM:DR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
COM:DR
COM:DEL
Deletion (all)

This page is for deletion requests where users request the deletion of media files or pages. This is for requests which require community discussion prior to eventual deletion.

Please note: The procedures on this page differ significantly from those of other Wikimedia projects, namely the English Wikipedia's Images and media for deletion, so all users should read the following instructions carefully. Also note: Arguments about copyright status are always more compelling than votes.

Overview

The Wikimedia Commons deletion requests page is to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion. When a debate has reached consensus or when it is likely that no additional arguments will be added, an administrator will close the discussion and determine whether the file should be deleted. For clear cases, it might happen within a few hours, but more complicated cases can go on for months.

Further remarks:

  • For requesting deletion of multiple files (mass nomination), please see Help:Mass deletion request.
  • Do not directly list at "Commons:Deletion requests".

Discussions

  • Current deletion requests: these deletion requests are either new or have been made recently
  • Older Discussions: these discussions are still OPEN and require attention! Please comment/close them if you are able. (Take care with large requests such as templates.)
  • Old Discussions for archived requests and discussions.

How to list "deletion requests"

Please note: you can now nominate individual media files directly at their description page. Just click on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox.
I.

Add {{delete|REASON(mandatory)}} tag:
  • Add the following code to the top of the image, category or article page.
  • If you are nominating many images in a series, write {{delete|reason|subpage}};[1] The full syntax is {{delete |reason= |subpage= |day= |month= |year= }}.
{{delete|REASON(mandatory)}}
II.

Create a subpage of Deletion Request:
Manually create a subpage of deletion requests and post your deletion request there,
  • Subpage: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FILE-NAME.JPG
  • Deletion Request: {{subst:delete2|image=Image:FILE-NAME.JPG|reason=WRITE REASON --~~~~}}
OR follow the procedure below
  • Enter the name of the file that you wish to nominate for deletion, click on "Create the subpage", and simply follow the instructions given there.
  • On an image page (on which you've added the {{delete}} template), you should have the "add the request page" link. Click on that link, and simply follow the instructions given there.
III.

Add the link of sub-page in "Deletion Request Log":

After you are done with that you have to add the newly created subpage to Commons:Deletion requests/2008/05/15. The log is sorted by every date; if there are already the other requests there, add your line at the bottom without erasing the existing requests. Remember to save the page.

Add the following code:
"FILE-NAME.JPG" is the name of the file you have tagged.

{{Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FILE-NAME.JPG}}
IV.

Notify the file uploader/page creator with {{idw}} tag:
  • Notify the uploader on their talk page. Use the notify text given after adding the delete template.
  • "FILE-NAME.JPG" is the name of the file you have tagged.
{{subst:idw|Image:FILE-NAME.JPG}} ~~~~
V.

Check the file/page usage:

For the sake of smooth process, please help to update the link. Check for Wikimedia projects that use this item. If there are links, remove or (if possible) replace with a superior item.
  1. ↑ For example, add {{delete|All photos of User:Mike are suspected copyvios|Images of Mike}} to all images in this series.

Other deletion procedures

Pages or files which are clearly inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons may qualify for "speedy deletion" or "ultimatum deletion" and do not need to be listed here. More in detail instructions can be found at Commons:Deletion guidelines. In brief:

  1. Files missing a valid source get tagged {{subst:nsd}} and files missing a valid license get tagged {{subst:nld}}. If these problems you specified with the tags do not get resolved within 7 days an admin will delete such tagged files on sight.
  2. A clear copyvio will be tagged {{copyvio}}. Insert your strong reasons. ~~~~ and will be deleted on sight by an admin.
  3. If an image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of an existing version tag it {{duplicate|Image:existing image.jpg}}.
  4. If you uploaded identical images using wrong or mistyped names, tag the incorrectly named files with {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} (other own files you want to get deleted get listed the usual way at the deletion request. State your reasons and the fact that you are the uploader but be aware that you have no right for a deletion of your files; generally the files will be kept in case they meet our criteria).
  5. It is rarely necessary to delete category pages. In the vast majority of cases, simply remove all the files from the category, and then redirect the old category to the new one (using {{Category redirect}} with |Other-Category-Name without prefix).
  6. General licensing policy issues and reviews of license templates get resolved at Commons talk:Licensing.
  7. Superseded images will not be deleted per discussion and consensus.

Appeal

To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. If you do not get the response you want, appealing deleted images can be done at Commons:Undeletion requests.

If the decision was correctly based on the current licensing and Commons:Project scope pages, you should express your dissatisfaction on a respective page.

Instructions for administrators

In general, requests can be closed after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. Problematic or complex requests (such as highly used templates) can wait longer, even months is not unusual.

Administrators are encouraged to check whether the uploader was notified on their talk page of the pending deletion request, unless the image is an obvious violation, in which case the image can be speedy deleted.

How to close the discussion

Note: The easiest way is to use DelReqHandler available as a gadget under "my preferences" (Firefox only).

  1. Add {{delh}} just above the header.
  2. Then add a line using ---- at the bottom of the request.
  3. Write the concluding statement (Deleted, Kept, Redirect, Merged, etc) and possibly an explanation. Sign.
  4. Then add {{delf}} at the bottom of the request.

See this example.

Discussions older than seven days

Recent discussions

Please force the server to re-render this page by purging its cache if the most recent discussions do not appear below.

Archive

Contents


May 10

Image:PST-zemljevid.JPG

The map was created after the WWII (not pd-old) and it has not been proven that it is in public domain by any other means. Works by the municipality of Ljubljana are not public domain per default. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

May be so. Though, it is meant to be in public use and 100% none will claim rights. This map is reproduced around the city x-times to describe historical fact and is not of great aesthetical/economical value. {{Copyrighted free use}} should be the right licence, but if it bothers you, change it or delete the image, as you please. Ziga 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately 'copyrighted free use' is not the right license, due to the second sentence of ZASP, paragraph 5. For the works in public places it prohibits the usage in the 3D form, usage for the same purpose as the original work, and usage for commercial purposes. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are certain, that this image cannot stay at wp/commons, then please

  • move it to wp sl (change licence)
  • delete it

thx., Ziga 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

copied to user:Sl-Ziga talk page


Image:Alison Lapper Pregnant.jpg

This is a derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture, for which no permission has been given. --Superm401 - Talk 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, note that the UK law says "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". The installation of this statue was not, and was not intended to be, permanent. Superm401 - Talk 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Per Collard; please prove the statue moves from day to day and you can have a full debate. giggy (:O) 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unspeedied it again; speedy keep is for obvious cases, which this is not. Non-permanent does not mean "moves from day to day". It means that when it is installed, removal is planned. That is the case here. I can't prove something if no one is watching the debate (because it's already closed). Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment (if I were logged-in this would be a vote): This photograph is of one of four temporary istallations to decide on the sculpture to occupy the previously-empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As Superm401 has pointed out, it was not (and was not intended to be, pending the competition results) a permanent installation (the last I heard, a sculpture of multiple layers of coloured glass was installed on that plinth), and I for one have never heard of this sculpture being installed anywhere else.
Perhaps someone could link to details of the competition, and of the relevant section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? -- 217.171.129.74 10:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, but it's not permanent. They keep putting different statues on this plinth. I think "temporary" and "permanent" may be rather fuzzy concepts and vary according to circumstances, but this is temporary like a painting in an exhibition not one in the main gallery of the museum. --Simonxag 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Tarch.jpg

THIS IS NOT PD-OLD. This picture is © Volodimir Semyonov, 1983 -- see http://www.cross-roads.ru/armour/bakhterets-and-tarch.html --Wesha 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Augustus.jpg

Who was the photographer? The author of the book? I don't think so. Maybe the photographer isn't 70 years dead. Who know's? So this image is younger than 100 years. Marcus Cyron 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Kloster Rathausen1.pdf

German town history Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Lagoa Nova.pdf

Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto.University Thesis Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Brochure Campunet.pdf

Business ad Text file not in Commons Scope --WayneRay 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dear_Mom_internado.jpg

No source Multichill 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  •  Comment use {{nld}} for no source images. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:IM000443.jpg

What is the subject of this image? Is it usefull for any wiki project? GeorgHH • talk   17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not only is this a totally baffling image (to me at any rate), it hasn't even got a proper name — "IM000443"?!?!

Nor does it have any description; to me this smells of an attempt to abuse Wikimedia as an image host. -- 92.40.94.95 11:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take your concerns seriously if you weren't doing stupid things like this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this image is a beautiful ukulele isn't it ? If you don't like people that gives image of strange music instrument, just to inform people that it exist you have no place here, I'm really angry again't that kind of faschist attitude ; but also I'm sorry that I have not well named this Image and I will repair this mistake, I'm just a new user so I can make mistake, good bye and good luck mister kapo

Best regards John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanbastiengmo (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: "The subject of this image is a beautiful ukulele isn't it ?"?! Is that indeed what it's supposed to be? — because I would question that description on both counts.

And to get back to the subject of this deletion debate, your response still doesn't address the second and most important of GeorgHH's qusetions: How is this image useful for any Wikimedia project? Because that is what Wikimedia Commons is for; merely being "beautiful" or "strange" is not qualification enough, especially since the uploader, in trying to "defend" his upload, has fallen into the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. -- Korax1214 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and per above. -- Korax1214 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It now has a description and a {{rename}} better than the one with which the IP above vandalised it. It's a photo of a home-made musical instrument that could be useful to someone, somewhere (maybe even a WMF project, who knows?). Also, I like it, which trumps everything else. That the uploader has fallen into the "reductio ad Hitlerum" error doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep it, merely give him a little education in logic. Please try not to bite his head off. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. It got renamed to Image:Improvised ukulele.jpg. It now has a description. Can we quit moaning now? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:FidelSmile.jpg

According to this, the photo comes from Reuters, not Radio Surco. The image title seems to indicate this, also. Kelly 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, most likely Surco acquired usage of the photo from Reuters. Either way it's usage would still be allowed based off of the sites disclaimer. How would it not be ? Redthoreau 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the description to match the fact that Claudia Daut of Reuters is the photographer. Wouldn't this cover the issue? Redthoreau 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding evidence at either of the source URLs given that this image is released under CC-BY-SA. Radio Surco may have permission to use this image, or they may have paid Reuters for it, or if challenged by Reuters they might claim fair use, but none of those things means Wikimedia Commons has the right to host it. So, delete unless there's evidence of free licensing I've overlooked. —Angr 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This photograph was used by Radio Surco, a Cuban news agency. Their website states (at bottom): "Autorizamos la reproducción de trabajos de este sitio, siempre que sea de forma íntegra y se cite la fuente." = English translation: "We authorize the reproduction of works on this site, wherever and in full acknowledgement of the source." Site. You are saying that such a declaration is not sufficient? Redthoreau 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If they don't own the copyright on a particular photo, I'm afraid they don't have the right to authorize its re-use. Kelly 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't clear who owns the copyright is it ? They very well could. What is clear however, is that they authorize reproduction as long as given credit. Wouldn't the liability be on them, if they are doing so illegally, not on Wikimedia for following their allowance? Redthoreau 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Certainly they could be held liable for the action; but then every person who re-distributes the image could be too (that includes you, by the way). But is this really the point? Sure, if we could pass the buck upstream every time we suspect a copyright violation, we could upload hundreds, if not thousands, of very high quality, obvious copyright-violations-tagged-as-CC pictures from Flickr. In fact, if we're going to take this to its logical conclusion, we'd do a YouTube and not patrol copyright violations at all, and wait for the DMCA take-down notices to roll in.
The difference here is that we actually care to ensure that images are free of certain restrictions. We owe it to our re-users, for one, and we have a reputation to build and keep. The day that someone gets hauled into court because they re-used a picture that they found on the Commons is the day our reputation goes down the pan.
Back to the image itself (and back, indeed, to the point). Delete because I don't find it very plausible that radiosurco.cu has bought a license to the photo that allowed unlimited sub-licensing. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We also have plenty of free images of Fidel Castro available in Category:Fidel Castro. Kelly 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Bell_Miner_boulumba.ogg

duplicate Aviceda 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dupe of what? Please use {{dupe}} next time. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:White-winged_Fairy-wren_coolmunda.JPG

duplicate Aviceda 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dupe of what? Please user {{dupe}} next time. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Images of Cilit

I think that User:Cilit's (User talk:Cilit) images are all copyvios because it seems like scans from czechoslovak journal Svět motorů or from Karosa's (czech bus producer) brochures from 70s. User:Aktron agrees with me (User talk:Aktron#Dotaz - in czech). Harold17 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete They do look rather like magazine scans. --Simonxag 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:C5.jpg is scan from this brochure (in pdf) - page 4, Image:Lc1.jpg is scan from this brochure (in pdf) - page 5. --Harold17 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 11

Image:03_Curio-Haus_1981-0709.jpg

PD status of this image seems unclear. It's doubtful that {{PD-GermanGov}} applies here, as there's no proof that this photo was "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment" (only very few photos become PD this way). And as it was taken in 1946, it can't be in the public domain due to age yet, even if the creator remained anonymous. --Kam Solusar 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Kam Solusar 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The tag is clearly wrong. A more useful source link is [1], where this image is used. It shows the accused in the "Neuengamme" process before a British military tribunal in the Curio building in Hamburg, Germany, between March 3 (or 14, or 18; on-line sources differ) and June 18, 1946. It is entirely unclear who the photographer was: a German news reporter (working for an Allied newspaper; I don't think there were any German newspapers that shortly after the war), a British news reporter, or a member of the British army tasked to act as court photographer. Unless the image had been subject to UK Crown Copyright, it is still copyrighted. Delete Lupo 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Philadelphia skyline August 2007.jpg

Image appears to be a copyright violation. I traced the source of the image back to the Flickr page, which does NOT release the image to the public domain, but contains a "© All rights reserved" marking. SchuminWeb 02:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Linky? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is here at Flickr. The original uploader at en-WP was en:User:Emy111, who claimed PD-self. From this image alone, it cannot be verified that en:User:Emy111 is indeed Flickr user i like the weekend. However, another upload of that user is interesting: en:Image:Philadelphia skyline sunset.jpg was also uploaded by en:User:Emy111 with a size of 1680×1050 pixels. At Flickr, the largest available size of that image is 975×648 pixels... I would say Keep, but if you want to be absolutely sure, ask i like the weekend about this. Lupo 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Alison Lapper Pregnant.jpg

This is a derivative work of the copyrighted sculpture, for which no permission has been given. --Superm401 - Talk 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, note that the UK law says "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". The installation of this statue was not, and was not intended to be, permanent. Superm401 - Talk 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept. Per Collard; please prove the statue moves from day to day and you can have a full debate. giggy (:O) 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unspeedied it again; speedy keep is for obvious cases, which this is not. Non-permanent does not mean "moves from day to day". It means that when it is installed, removal is planned. That is the case here. I can't prove something if no one is watching the debate (because it's already closed). Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment (if I were logged-in this would be a vote): This photograph is of one of four temporary istallations to decide on the sculpture to occupy the previously-empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. As Superm401 has pointed out, it was not (and was not intended to be, pending the competition results) a permanent installation (the last I heard, a sculpture of multiple layers of coloured glass was installed on that plinth), and I for one have never heard of this sculpture being installed anywhere else.
Perhaps someone could link to details of the competition, and of the relevant section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? -- 217.171.129.74 10:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, but it's not permanent. They keep putting different statues on this plinth. I think "temporary" and "permanent" may be rather fuzzy concepts and vary according to circumstances, but this is temporary like a painting in an exhibition not one in the main gallery of the museum. --Simonxag 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nixon greets POW McCain.jpg

The web site http://pro.corbis.com says the photo was taken on May 24, 1973 by Ron Sachs and is copyrighted to Corbis Sygma (ID number 0000360771-012). And, the Associated Press web site http://www.apimages.com gives this photo ID number 730914043.Ferrylodge 04:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Image:Natalie Portman at Comic Con 2005.jpg

Delete possible copyright violation. Even if the picture is available at Flickr, that doesn't prove that the screen shown in the picture is free from copyright concerns. People are told explicitly that they cannot take photos of many things which are shown on those screens at conventions. Comic-Con posts notices in that particular room saying, "Absolutely NO recording or photography of the images or video on the screens in this room." --Doczilla 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete The human figure at the centre of this picture is almost incidental. It is basically of the screen and as we've established time and again, that's a copyright violation. --Simonxag 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Image:P1080023.JPG

RENAME: the current name (P1080023) doesn't give any clue as to where this building is, what it is, or why it should be chosen for a page. 217.171.129.74 09:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Rename would be more appropriate, and this has been requested. -- 217.171.129.79 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Images uploaded by user Gorthaur