Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] November 8

[edit] File:Railway Cy map.jpg

This file is the same as File:CGR_map.jpg, which was deleted today because it does not contain a source for the underlying map data, see COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. --Sv1xv (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This map was created by me, based on the Greek version of it. How can I make you stop tagging my maps? NeoCy (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You must state the source of geographical data used to create this map and prove that is is wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license. See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. I have explained to you the Wikimedia Commons policy on your talk page (with examples), see User talk:NeoCy#Adding source information to maps, but you chose to ignore it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done... but I have seen other maps too, not all of them state their origin. Why this specific obsession over this one??? NeoCy (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See my reply in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyprus geomorphologic.jpg‎. Sv1xv (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cyprus_geomorphologic.jpg

Very unlikely to be "Own work" of uploader. Please see other deleted maps that this user uploaded Justass (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This map was created by me. There are Greek and English version of it. How can I make you stop tagging my maps? NeoCy (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • By stating the source of geographical data used to create this map and proving that is is wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license. See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. Sv1xv (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done... but I have seen other maps too, not all of them state their origin. Why this specific obsession over this one??? NeoCy (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not an obsession. Most maps without a source are simple outlines of borders and coastlines and can be seen as "simple facts and data". This specific map and its derivative for CGR are very detailed and a source is required to established its free status. If you see a detailed map without a source, please request the cartographer to add it. Sv1xv (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of User:Quahadi

I believe that many of User:Quahadi's images are of very low quality and shows unimportant details, unrelated to intented subject of indivudual pictures. Some are relatively decent, but very similar to his other pictures. Low quality pictures guideline states that pictures that are "not properly demonstrating the subject of the image, or are being visually unappealing in another way" can be proposed for deletion. At his user page, you can find a list of categories where he "uploaded more than 95% of the content". If you chech those categories, you will see that they are being fileld with low quality images and that he made those categories an exercize in futility regarding finding decent images of the subject. He clearly made zero effort to filter even the most useless images before uploading them here. Someone should go through all of his contributions and delete all useless images. --Veliki Kategorizator (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


I oppose to deletionsm. I don't know how to use programs like photoshop . So my images are not edited at all. That is true. However,my intention is to describe (by photos) places that are not described.Anto (talk)

Let's be constructive -not destructive!Anto (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete They aren't all worthless, which makes it much more challenging. I dug through the ones listed above and would say that the following list should not be deleted:


I have gone all over these listed images and I wrote which ones I agree to be deleted. OK . Anto (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You said that few days ago, but You failed to propose for deletion even the most blurry ones. Your criteria is extremely low and letting You decide anything about your pictures won't bring as anywhere. --Veliki Kategorizator (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
my contributions and you will see that I have reviewed and agreed for cca 100 to be deleted . at some I disagreed, off course. But I see no reason for such lynch????--Anto (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding list of pictures that should not be deleted, note that I chosed them as the least usefull in categories with 100 or so pictures. File:Badija02541.JPG might look OK, but if You compare it other 108 images in Category:Badija (mostly made by the same user), You'll see that we definitively could live without it. --Veliki Kategorizator (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This contributor has uploaded a lot of junk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My photos display places that are not mainstream and know worldwide. They are not some miracles of the world -TRUE! But most of the places really are not such ! The reality is that places are such as they are. Some are displayed by the same pattern and therefore monotone . But,since it is not some law violation I seen no reason for me beeing Foot whipped.Anto (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

@Anto, you are neither being lynched nor foot-whipped. A discussion about your uploads (or their eventual deletion) is not a discussion about you as a Commons-user/contributor. When uploading an image to Commons, every uploader consents that there is no entitlement or guarantee that this photo will be accepted or will stay for ever on Commons. Please, try to take this discussion as an incentive to try to improve your knowhow about photography and your care when taking photos and when choosing photos for upload to Commons.
However, I want to remind all those involved in this discussion to regard tact and sensitivity in the wording of their comments. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
How to be tactful about images like File:Vela-Luka00943.JPG? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Tact is directed to persons, not to things. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to shorten the long file list and to ease the discussion about the remaining files, I will delete all those images to whose deletion the uploader agreed, if nobody objects. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I have deleted all those files because the discussion here above, the files are Out of Scope Huib talk 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brugge_-_tram_2,_1920.jpg

Not old enough to assume PD-old, missing source for why this should be PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment More information is needed: The date of publication if it anonymous or the identity and year of death of the photographer. Sv1xv (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The author is unknown. The date of publication is 1920. Wikifalcon (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bix_beiderbecke.jpg

Is licensed as public domain in countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years, but the author is unknown and any author being dead for 70 years is not trivial in this case. Hekerui (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless better info showing original author and confirming copyright status can be provided. At present insufficient info to confirm copyright status. Infrogmation (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Provincia_di_Palermo-Stemma.png

Probably taken from some website. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:LUNA_German_UAV.jpg

Der als Quelle angegebene Internetlink nach eucom.mil gibt keinen Sicherheit über die Richtigkeit der Lizenzangabe. Der Benutzer Wikifreund gab an, dass es sich um die Aufnahme eine US Militärangehörigen handle, nur kann dies nicht mit Hilfe des Internetlinks verifiziert werden. Nachdem das Bild eine sehr geringe Auflösung hat und nur Bundeswehrsoldaten auf dem Bild zu sehen sind, ist mehr davon auszugehen, dass diese Fotoaufnahme von der offiziellen Internetpräsenz der Bundeswehr stammt. Dies hätte zur Folge, dass es sich um Urheberrechtsverletzung handelt und das Bild gelöscht werden muss. 132.199.34.177 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The image is correctly licensed, as it was created by a US Army NCO during his duty. See [3]. Sv1xv (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The image is Department of Defense photo shot by US Army Sgt. 1st Class Brenda Benner. Thus it is a work of a US Army employee and consequently in the public domain.Deine Bedenken in Ehren, aber hierbei handelt es sich um ein Werk eines US Militärangehörigen, der das Bild während seiner Dienstzeit aufnahm. Somit ist das Foto gemeinfrei. So ist das bei den US Streitkräften (und nicht nur dort) geregelt. --High Contrast (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Maquisards_-_Glières.JPG

Not the real autor, and bad date (not 2009-10-15!) Manu (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cette image est la photo d'une photo exposée au mur. La photo originale n'a pas d'auteur identifiée, elle date de moins de 70 ans évidemment, l'auteur ne peut pas être mort depuis plus de 70 ans. C'est dommage, mais c'est comme ça...--Manu (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. Non ben si on a des problèmes de droits d'auteur, je ne compte pas m'opposer à sa suppression. Celà-dit bon, elle est en affichage libre et public dans le musée de la Résistance et devant l'ancienne infirmerie du maquis des Glières. Et le guide membre de l'association gérant le musée et les visites m'a permis d'utiliser toutes mes photos (je lui ai parlé d'éventuelles publications sur Internet). Bon, effectivement ce n'en est peut-être pas à lui de décider, ou si oui, il ne m'a pas fait d'attestation écrite que je puisse amener ici. Je ne peux donc rien dire d'autre. Je pensais bien faire, je ne connais pas tout en détail sur les photographies d'autres photographies, moi je la croyais libre de droits puisqu'en affichage public, si tel n'est pas le cas, je m'incline.
L'auteur, --Floflo (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Seul l'auteur de la photo peut choisir la licence. C'est dur, mais c'est comme ça... --Manu (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Salute.jpg

Evidence is missing for this photograph being in the "US National Archives". It is most likely not the case that this image is a work of the United States Federal Government. High Contrast (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • [4]. They collect photos of historical interest, so in actuality *anything* might be in there. Might qualify as an anonymous work. -Nard the Bard 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment USHMM clearly labels this as NARA work. I would say Symbol keep vote.svg Keep....at first glance. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • NARA doesn't produce original works (at least not most of what it collects). This is most likely a German photo, subject to German copyright law (for the purposes of Commons, anyway). To be public domain in Germany, it has to either be an anonymous work from before 1939 (this photo is from 1936) or the author must have died before 1939. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Leonardo Milan.JPG

It seems to be a screenshot from a video similar to this one (final seconds). --Simo82 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rega_logo.png

No evidence for permission under a free license. Is this ineligible? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no copyright claims on the Logo on the Rega Website itself. They have a huge archive of pictures where at least the non-commercial use of this material is allowed. As this organisation is financed by contributions of their thousand of members they have an interest or at least nothing against showing it on wikipedia. But I can upload it on german wikipedia where the use of logos is a bit more liberal if you want do delete it on commons. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Logos Weekender73 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:THW-Jugend_Logo.svg

Missing license and permission. Doesn't look ineligible to me. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the licence and permission from the original in ohter form again. --Thiemo Schuff (schuff.eu) (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Reagan_National_Airport_Station_in_2009.jpg

Per discussion, we have no reason to believe that we actually have the right to use this photo as claimed. User has a history of uploading files found online and claiming them as their own work. SchuminWeb (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fort_Totten_Station_in_2009.jpg

Per discussion, we have no reason to believe that we actually have the right to use this photo as claimed. User has a history of uploading files found online and claiming them as their own work. SchuminWeb (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, if nobody else can locate this image (I tried) and find it to be free. Uploader never answered my question about the source of his uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selnec north.gif

[edit] File:South_Dakota_state_flag.png

No assertion of source or author of the image. The file was on en.wikipedia, was tagged with a license that had no legal basis and no sources on where the image came from and author. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:White_people_variety.jpg

One of the images was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Makka sa.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Paris_landscape.JPG

The Louvre Pyramid was designed by architect I.M. Pei, who is still alive. France doesn't recognize freedom of panorama. This is a rather straightforward case, but the uploader, Lightwarrior2, thinks I'm against him because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:I. M. Pei Louvre Pyramid.jpg (see also File talk:Paris landscape.JPG).

Apparently pt: is having a discussion whether to allow Fair Use pictures locally and Lightwarrior2 wants Commons to host his picture for pt:Pirâmide do Louvre until pt: can accept it. I don't think this is proper. Also, pt:Pirâmide do Louvre already shows a picture of the Pyramid that is acceptable under De minimis (File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I. M. Deleted more like. -Nard the Bard 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • no real opinion. I think I had suggested the cropping of the image in one of the previous discussions by centering it on the fountain, thus making the pyramid De Minimis, but if the aim is to show the pyramid it cannot be De Minimis, even if the image is renamed... I don't have any objection for an image to be deleted anyway, so I would be for Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Esby (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And really, i asked how this De Minimis works... remember?! I made suggestions...and our conversation stopped long time ago... But really, delete it please. I don´t have and i don´t want spend energies to discuss this... Life is too short to make "wars" and enemies. Light Warrior Conspiracy?!? 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wappen Österreich-Ungarn 1915 (Mittel).png

superseded File:Austria-Hungary coa 1915.png, here the original autograph of Ströhl (lower left bottom) is removed, which is some kind of falsification --W!B: (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete used --Simonxag (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep it's a cleaned-up version of the same image, but from a different source, apparently; a number of stains & markings have clearly been removed (& the level of fine detail seems slightly less). presumably the editor also removed the signature of the artist as part of the "tidying" process (or perhaps the original image was produced in versions with & without the artist's signature). both files should be kept; the one is "prettier" (hence more useful as a general illustration), the other seems to be slightly more detailed (probably several stages closer to a raw scan; hence a better representation of the artist's work) Lx 121 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Logweb.gif

Out of scope, no usable description, „permission=NO“ hints that this might also be a copyvio Mormegil (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Most likely a copyvio from the tiny resolution. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not clear, because intellectual property http://machosperu.pe.kz

logweb.gif is a MACHOSPERU Community logo, which link is: http://machosperu.pe.kz http://machosperu.x10hosting.com/logweb.gif

Deleted. All rights reserved on the source website, no permission. Eusebius (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spinosaurina_2.jpg

Too crude, out of scope, same with this version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spinosaurina.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Used on user's userpage. --Simonxag (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/11/08"