Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
nudity 94.99.126.180 09:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep not a reason for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept per above. Note: no notice ever placed on image Infrogmation (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
copyvio image taken from internet Mangostar (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. (Note: No deletion notice was placed on image page.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Structure is incorrect - that's aminoisopentanol. Correct structure is now at File:Ambuphylline.svg Ron 00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted (uploader request). Chemical structure is indeed wrong. Edgar181 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
uploaded under real name (File:Vojinovića most.jpg) --Tadija (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Please, use {{Duplicate}} or {{Bad name}} according to the situation. ·×α£đ·es 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Vojinovića most.jpg
not "own work" as stated Avron (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its a scan. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Vehicle for product spam Calton (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral so? It's a good picture of a real-world object; if we can surmount the licensing problems, then we should keep it, and deal with anyone who uses it abusively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- keep In my view a corporation uploads a high-quality picture of one of their special machines to commons. That is a good thing. Permission is stated as cc-by-sa 3.0. Possible Product Spam will be dealt with if it occurs. (I contacted the corporation by email to ask if pictures have been really uploaded by themselves and are cc-by-sa) --Neozoon (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Can be used for other things than product spamming, even if for me the uploading to Commons looks like advertising. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Cheese (Gnome).svg, file is nowhere in use, descriptions are merged --Frakturfreund (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused duplicate. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Contradictary and questionable source and license info. Sourced to "Arts Journal", unknown date, unknown photographer. There have been multiple "Arts Journal" publications-- it would have to be a European one per the "anon work" tag. But it is also tagged as licensed under Creative Commons. --Infrogmation (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It was published in 2008 in the Arts Journal and as it was described at the article the photo was shot at the late 40s-early 50s.--MaximilianT (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I recognize that I should have been more careful with the licensing. I changed it to PD-1996. --MaximilianT (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Neither of the templates on the image apply to it. {{Anonymous work}} does not apply to images from the US, and {{PD-1996}} requires a reason why the image is in the public domain separate in addition to its pre-1978 publication, which does not apply to this image as it is a US image. This image is still under copyright, even if its author is not known, according to US law, and thus is not acceptable for Commons. Chick Bowen (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Still copyrighted. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
copyvio 188.162.235.229 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, cannot be used for educational purposes. Please note that uploading of personal photographs to Commons is forbidden. See COM:PS. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Violates Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan. Photos of the statue in Japan are not the target of FOP and are not allowed to accept (or copy) to Commons, because fairuse. --Vantey (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in Japan. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Private draft, building does not exist nor relevant --Arch2all (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Quality file is very low to be usable. ·×α£đ·es 22:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete No specific educational value compared to our existing "collection". "No penis" issued to the uploader. --Eusebius (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is not free ferbr1 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment It looks like PNG version of File:UN emblem blue.svg, and similar files already exist in Category:United Nations flags and insignia. ·×α£đ·es 00:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Repleceable with Small Flag of the United Nations ZP.svg. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This file is not free ferbr1 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. If it is indeed by Don Van Vliet, as the description says, than it is highly unlikely to be free, as Van Vliet was a commercial musician and in any case retired well before the Free Art License was developed. Chick Bowen (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
bad quality, no relevancy Arch2all (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unusable -Justass (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Marked as own work and released under the public domain, but looking at the picture it seems to me that it was stolen from another website. There is no evidence that this work is efectively on the public domain and thus I dispute the "own work" claim. Uploader was previously blocked for a month for the same behaviour (mass upload of copyvios despite warnings). Thank you, — Dferg (disputatio) 11:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. obvious copyvio, see also [1] :bdk: 18:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
If the author is unknown and we don't have a source for a publication in Poland prior to 1994, there is no way we can apply PD-Polish. Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Photos from private archive were accepted before. File:Jerzy Popieluszko.jpg, File:Gierek in Rząśnik.jpg. A.J. (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The exact term from Polish pre-1994 copyright law is not "published" but "pl:ustalony" (fixed, established) which means "in such form that is able to be presented to other person besides creator". In basically means, that every copy should be marked with copyright notice. If it was not marked (I suppose we could trust uploader to check backside of the photo), then it's not copyrighted. On other side, publication in other source (such as book) does not guarantee copyright status for sure. Famous photo of Karol Wojtyła as a student, published in pre-1994 book without copyright notice was in fact copyrighted (see: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Karol_Wojtyla-matura.jpg). I suppose that the PD-Poland template should be rewritten more precisely and a policy for "home archives" should be created to avoid further controversies. A.J. (talk)
- I would be against a general policy for "home archives", and many other admins would. It would be a huge breach in our efforts to comply with copyright law. The files you have pointed have been kept, but as far as I know, it is because PD-Polish applies, not because they were from home archive. Many home archive files get deleted. Regarding this file, I have of course nothing against a keep if the result of the discussion is that PD-Polish applies. --Eusebius (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am afraid it is not good argument if somebody says he is against general policy together with many other admins; particularly some other admins do not agree with you. The best and only reason to keep or to delete is to act exactly as it was written in the legal regulations. If legal regulations for pre-1994 works in Poland allow publishing this photo, we can keep it in Commons. Per A.J. - Keep. Julo (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was not an argument, it was merely a comment, but I did not say that I was "against general policy". I said/meant that I was "against a [new] general policy" that would make us blindly accept any files which says "from my home archive", because, like you say, "the best and only reason to keep or to delete is to act exactly as it was written in the legal regulations". As far as I can see, I just agree with you... --Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The exact term from Polish pre-1994 copyright law is not "published" but "pl:ustalony" (fixed, established) which means "in such form that is able to be presented to other person besides creator". In basically means, that every copy should be marked with copyright notice. If it was not marked (I suppose we could trust uploader to check backside of the photo), then it's not copyrighted. On other side, publication in other source (such as book) does not guarantee copyright status for sure. Famous photo of Karol Wojtyła as a student, published in pre-1994 book without copyright notice was in fact copyrighted (see: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Karol_Wojtyla-matura.jpg). I suppose that the PD-Poland template should be rewritten more precisely and a policy for "home archives" should be created to avoid further controversies. A.J. (talk)
Comment Home archives can be very different. If there is high probability that a member of Krzysztof Król family took the picture and he is somehow associated with the uploader than I would use {{PD-heirs}} instead of {{PD-Polish}}. If the image was taken by somebody else and then many copies distributed among friends and family (and their friends and family and ...) until one copy ended up with Krzysztof Król family, as it often happened back then than I would say it was a distribution covered by {{PD-Polish}}. I am a little afraid of expanding the range of {{PD-Polish}} outside of the narrow set of conditions presently agreed on. That is why we generally do not argue that all "reporter photographs" (reporterskie zdjęcia fotograficzne) (see Art.5 of the 1952 law ), published or unpublished, fall under PD-Polish. --Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-Polish. Kameraad Pjotr 20:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)