Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/06

nonsense --JoJan (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please tag such things for speedy deletion (in this case, simply {{Db}}). AVRS (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Personal pic, unused for 7 days. Eusebius (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info It was kind of added to en:Hold on Tight (album). --AVRS (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, right... --Eusebius (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since September 29, 2009

NO otrs documentation for rights release Damiens.rf 12:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete April! Someone listed it here today. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this photograph is not free to use for anybody (Majlis.ir) 132.199.211.29 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This image was tagged with No license on September 29 so this DR is not needed. Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having doubts about source of this work. Found it at http://www.hmv.co.jp/digital/artist/000000000339677/ and the user has other questionable uploads and deletions as well. Wknight94 ^talk 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I'm not much worried by the use of the image somewhere else, but given the nature of the image and the other problems with the user's uploads I do doubt that it was self made. --Simonxag (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – per Simonxag. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having extreme doubts about the source of this work. Found a very similar one at http://www.tennistalk.com/en/previews/20091005/US_Open_champion_Del_Potro_debuts_in_Tokyo and the user has other questionable uploads and deletions as well. Wknight94 ^talk 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unless the uploader can tell us about their remarkable life where they can take images only a professional photographer can take. --Simonxag (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/faune/html/rom_ile_aux_herons.html who is under a crown copyright --Fralambert (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Curiously it's been removed from its original source (a collection of photos). --Simonxag (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At best fair-use of actual poster, at worst copyvio. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it didn't get nominated properly (?, I used the toolbox-script). Added it to Commons:Deletion requests/2009/10/06 now. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not used in Wikimedia. Unless the uploader is the photographer/copyright holder of the original images used in the poster, not own work to license.  Delete Infrogmation (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File submitted by myself in error. Nova Scotia Route 218 does not exist. Gordalmighty (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per uploader's request --Simonxag (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any article, only used in "hate speech" user boxes DarkPhoenix (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info w:ca:islamofòbia Cameta (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep There are a lot of pics that it hadn't use never. It's a symbol of islamofobia.--KRLS (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Widely used in islamophobic contexts, therefore it has informative value in articles about this subject. --Leptictidium (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep In use in ca:w article "Islamofòbia", in scope. Seems to be a logo illustrative of an attitude rather than an insightment to hatered. Infrogmation (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep in use, therefore useful. We have many of these "no" images abd they are more useful than they may first appear. --Simonxag (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Evelina Pereira and I have not gave permission for the publication of this photo. Please advise what is the next step to have this photo removed.Thank you 81.193.131.240 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This next text is copied from here

 Keep The photographer is a italian fashion photographer. Further more, this photo was taken in a public event, the Portugal Fashion 2005. This fashion model is a well known portuguese model, appearing several times on rhe press and television. The personality rights of this model - also a singer and actress, but is better known in Portugal as a fashion model.(if the ip that is requesting this deletion is the same as the model), according to the portuguese law, in this especific case is weak, as to according to paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.

A rough translation:

"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."

So this image is fine for several reasons:

1- Was taken in a public event in the catwalk on the presentation of the portuguese fashion designer Miguel Vieira, that is inclusive televised and extensively covered by the Portuguese press.

2- Its a notorious person.

3- The person portrayed is acting on its most notorious job.

3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.

4- Its a fact of the public interest.

So is image, as taken by a fashion photographer (see is flickr profile and this on a portuguese photography site.), in a public event as several that he as acess, so the copyright is with a photographer that as licensed with a creative commons license, so i see no problem with this image. Tm (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per above. Illustrative image free licensed by photographer; person shown retains personality rights as noted on the image description. Infrogmation (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph was not taken on the catwalk but in the backstage where the models have the right to their privacy. The photographer did not have permission to publish the photograph since the photo was not taken during the model's performance in the fashion show but backstage. Russweber (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy  Keep for the reasons stated above, on the first DR made 8 years ago and also because there is no proof it was taken in the backstage, even if this backstage is a public place per the event and portuguese law. The user that made this DR is a new user, Russweber that made an account today (January 29 2018) and only made editions related with the deletion of this image. He also made several editions on Evelina Pereira article on PT and EN Wikipedias, attempting to supress other image of this model on the same event or her birthday, besides some useful updates.

This image, as stated above was taken in Portugal Fashion 2005, at the time the biggest fashion event in Portugal, and she was and is one of the most famous portuguese model, actress and singer. She participated in this event as fashion model. The personality rights of this model - also a singer and actress, but better known in Portugal as a fashion model, in this specific event is weak, according to the portuguese law, as to according to paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.

A rough translation:

"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his jobI, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, Ior when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."

So this image is fine for several reasons:

1- Was taken in a public event in the Portugal Fashion on the presentation of the portuguese fashion designer Miguel Vieira.

2- Its a notorious person.

3- The person portrayed is acting on its most notorious job.

4- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.

5- Its a fact of the public interest.

Even if this was taken in the backstage, the backstage is full of models, hairdressers, fashion designers, photographers and and so is not a private, to the contrary of what Russweber states. Even the backstage is televised and extensively covered by the Portuguese press and this assertion can be quickly proven with several examples: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten examples that prove that the backstage is a public place, where there is a extensive photographic coverage and so no expectation of privacy.

Even if taken in backstage the depicted person, Evelina Pereira, is clearly looking and posing to the photographer, Roberto Santorini an italian fashion photographer well known in the fashion industry, and about consent, is clearly stated in Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Portugal as there it stated that the Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code says that(in bold):

“Unlawful recording and photographing. 1. One who, without consent, a) records another person's words not intended for ::public knowledge (...) is punished with prison up to one year or a fine (...). 2. The same penalty applies to whom, against ::their will, a) photographs or films another person, even taking part in events in which their presence is lawful; or ::b) uses or permits to use such photographs or films, even if obtained lawfully.”.

However, in public places, it is not the photographer that must ask to permission to photograph persons but that the depicted persons that must show explicitly that they are against being photographed by some other person, for taking images and reproduced said images. For example in 2007, Marinho Pinto (today Bastonário of the Portuguese Bar Association, the only Order that can certifies and aproves the Portuguese lawyers and barristers), citing the Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code, pointed out that “the only case it is not allowed to take photos is when there is an explicit refusal by the affected individuals. One has to actively oppose to beeing photographed by another person,” he said, referring to a case of a hobby photographer arrested by the police just for taking photos of kids at a funfair (they thought him to be a pedophile). Although the police justified this measure by claiming the missing parental consent to take photographs of their children, there is a general consensus among legal practitioners that the police was not acting legally.

In this context, the parents should have shown active opposition to the taking of images of their kids. The Portuguese courts are very clear in mentioning that, unless someone actively opposses being portrayed, there isnt any consent needed as, if article 79(1) of the portuguese civil code says that "The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent;", the article 79(2) of the same code says that, in exception to the former artcile "It is not required the consent of the portrayed person when so justifies scientific, educational or cultural purposes [and Wikimedia Commons is in said exception as it has educational purposes and this images put to DR depict the traditions and costumes of portugal, in music, old people feeding peageons, carnivals, markets, and other events that are at the same time in public places, facts of public interest and have occurred publicly], or when said reproduction is framed in public places, or framed in facts of public interest or have occurred publicly.". To the contrary of what Russweber, states, consent to be photographed, in public places, is responsibility of someone being portrayed and not of the photographer.

The Portuguese courts and law in that are very clear in this case. The only example were the photographing of person present public places is forbideen by default, is in a courthouse in some cases, per article 88(2c). The portuguese courthouses is a public building but it is forbidden to capture images or sound of processual acts, specially court hearings, except in the case that a judge permits it, but even it that case it is still forbidden, to film or capture her voice of a person if that person activally oposes it (as this case shows, if this law mentions this particular case and phroibition without consent of the judge and person portrayed, in general, it is permissible to make images of people in publicly acessible places).

Portuguese courts have explicitly said what is permissible and what is not:

Even in a case of private properties there are areas the portuguese courts define as "public acessible locals". A case decide by the "tribunal da Relação de Lisboa said that:

"A photograph of a minor, taken in a college patio, in a festivity day and with the presence of many peoples,doesnt need of consent to be reproduced in posters.

II - The reproduction made in the Portuguese Comunist Party posters, of one of this pictures doesnt ofend the right to image, because it is a fact that accurs publicaly."

Citing this same decision the "Tribunal da Relação do Porto",about a case of photos, taken in the weeding ocorred in publicaly acessible garden being used in a divorce case said:

"In first place, when the image is squared in public places or in facts of public interest or have occurred publicly. That is, when the image of the person is undoubtedly integrated in the image of those places or events and dissolves in it.b) Secondly, when it is relevant to 'notoriety or position (job) performed ». A decision from the same tribunal, dated 16/03/1993, even if it verses about a crime of other kind,it applies , mutatis mutandis, to the case in appreciation,where it says “Does not commits the crime of interference with private life, per Article 179 º of Criminal Code of 1982, who shoots,from a street or a house for turned to it, a discussion or a disorder, or an exchange of insults, occurring within a workshop whose door is open so that such situations are easily visible from said street or house, "or, on the contrary, if the garden where are the assistant and the lady with the newlyweds, whose image was captured,corresponds to a private residence of the bride or groom, their parents, or any garden or farm reserved specifically for the wedding in the assistant participated as a guest, or the garden of a hotel, with forbidden acess to other users of this hotel and other persons accessing this same hotel and thus unlikely to the wedding party be viewed by people outside the group / circle of people invited by the couple.

The same can be said about the other images: in the first, where once again the assistant appears photographed in a garden, the same considerations apply here about this site; and in the second, where we see a banquet/lunch where there is many people, it is unknown whether the place where lunch, corresponds to a private residence or farm reserved specifically for the wedding party and therefore inaccessible to the general public, or whether on the contrary, that room represents a dinning room in a hotel or restaurant, with several other dining rooms, where that lunch (or not, as so often happens) just the bride and groom and their guests have lunch but the other users of the hotel and other people that are in that hotel are lunching, with a possiblity moving to said weeeding, with ability to view (as is the case so often in the daily life of all), the room where they celebrate the wedding breakfast and the people participating in it.

By the way, and about the penal protection of the spoken word, to wich it is applicable the rules available to pictures and movies, its worth mentioning, with the necessary adaptations, the considerations made by Prof. Manuel da Costa Andrade, saying that, are public the words said in public organs (municipal townhouses, courts, etc), even if there isnt any aaistance (…) Also are public the words made in political rallies (even with sparse assistance) (…) in realizations as conferences, even if the presence of persons are limited by the previous acquisition of a entrance ticket. And that even if the number of admissions is very limited, if this same events are accessible to any person. Also the decision, in process nº 239/06.5GAVNC.G, of “Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães, dated, 28/9/2009, says “Does not constitutes proof obtained by intromission in private life, so being admissible as proof in court, the photo taken to the arguido, when he, in a coffee terrace, induced a minor of seven years to touch is pennies. Being the arguido in public place, in the company of other persons (..) he cant invoke the reserve of private life, not even, in casu, the right to image.”

So this image is perfectly legal as this image was taken in public place, of a very public event and of public interest and has "scientific, educational or cultural purposes".

For last, with the deletions on EN and PT Wikipedias and the attempt to delete this image, this smells like an attempt to shape and massage the articles about Evelina Pereira, by someone related to Evelina Pereira, possibly someone with PR duties. Tm (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A message from an anonymous IP contributor came in, eight years ago, asserting they were Eveline Pereira.

  In my opinion, they should have been advised to initiate correspondence through OTRS. We have no way to trust that 81.193.131.240 is Ms Pereira. I think it should have been essential to have used OTRS to confirm this request was coming from Ms Pereira, not a troll, or a rival.

  Even if an image is properly licensed, and our lawyers advise us that it complies with the laws of both the USA, and the country where it was taken, we do agree to courtesy deletions, on a case by case basis.

  Nominator Russweber, is your nomination based on a recent interaction with Ms Pereira? Can you explain how you know it is the real Evelina Pereira? If so, please withdraw this nomination, request Ms Pereira open a ticket with OTRS, and satisfy them that she is the real Evelina Pereira. Once she has confirmed her real world identity, then I think it is appropriate to re-open this discussion.

  Russweber, you wrote: "This photograph was not taken on the catwalk but in the backstage where the models have the right to their privacy."

  Could you explain how you know where the image was taken? I can't tell, just by looking at it, whether it was taken backstage, or on the catwalk.

  A comment, from the first discussion, asserts that, under Portugese law, since she is a celebrity, it doesn't matter whether she gave permission. You didn't explain why you believe that assertion is incorrect. If you have reason to believe it is incorrect, once Ms Pereira confirms her identity, through OTRS, perhaps you could explain this. Geo Swan (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, there’s no way this is a bona fide courtesy deletion request, this photo is not unflattering and also obviously not a candid, surprise shot. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am Evelina Pereira and I have not gave permission for the publication of this photo. Please advise what is the next step to have this photo removed.Thank you 81.193.131.240 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info As far as can be observed here, the copyright holder is Roberto Santorini (who released his picture under a free license), not Evelina Pereira. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, we should certainly add {{Personality rights}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, absolutely. Done, thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The photographer is a italian fashion photographer. Further more, this photo was taken in a public event, the Portugal Fashion 2005. This fashion model is a well known portuguese model, appearing several times on rhe press and television. The personality rights of this model - also a singer and actress, but is better known in Portugal as a fashion model.(if the ip that is requesting this deletion is the same as the model), according to the portuguese law, in this especific case is weak, as to according to paragraph 2 of the article 79 of the portuguese civil code, makes several exceptions to the image rights.

A rough translation:

"Its not necessary the consent of the person portrayed when so justify by their notoriety, his job, requirements of police or justice, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when the reproduction of the image comes framed in public places, or the facts of public interest or that has occurred publicly."

So this image is fine for several reasons:

1- Was taken in a public event in the catwalk on the presentation of the portuguese fashion designer Miguel Vieira, that is inclusive televised and extensively covered by the Portuguese press.

2- Its a notorious person.

3- The person portrayed is acting on its most notorious job.

3- Its framed in a public place and in a event that has occurred publicly.

4- Its a fact of the public interest.

So is image, as taken by a fashion photographer (see is flickr profile and this on a portuguese photography site.), in a public event as several that he as acess, so the copyright is with a photographer that as licensed with a creative commons license, so i see no problem with this image. Tm (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep But remove the RS watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per above. Infrogmation (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, and personality rights duly noted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD in the USA; a photograph taken in Australia in 1952 had its copyright expire at the end of 2002 in Australia. Since it was not PD in its home country on 1 Jan 1996, the URAA extends the US copyright to 2047. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep PD-Australia, otherwise there will be no end to deletions here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Stifle, as this is an AWM image marked "copyright expired - public domain", per discussion at Ellis Wackett's FAC, I'd assume you'd be cool keeping this if the appropriate PD-Release tag was added. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I'm happy to withdraw this request as the source page says PD. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks mate - I've added the appropriate PD tag to the file per our discussion, but haven't removed the deletion tag as yet - is this request offically closed now or does something else have to happen? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not sure if this has been closed, but vote keep as per Pieter. Seriously the wiki community needs to somehow resolve this issue (and the one of Crown copyright) as we are constantly going through the motions on such images. I'm no lawyer but if the very party that could assert copyright (for instance the AWM or the Australian Government in other similar cases) says that the image is PD then it seems rather silly to say that the image is still copyright in the US and hence cannot be used. The wider issue of the impact of deleting such images should also be considered - ulimately thousands of articles are going to suffer considerably. Anotherclown (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once it was pointed out to me that the AWM said the image was PD, I cancelled the request. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for confirming that, Stifle - on that basis I've removed the deletion tag on the image file, which now bears the Australian Government PD template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that game covers are generally not in the public domain. If i am wrong, please forgive, i am new on Commons A.Hakansson (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why this file is deleting? In other pages about computer games (for example Crysis) include game covers. User talk:RussianWarfare

 Delete because it's Fair use, upload it to your local wiki if it allow that --Justass (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope. Personal picture, unused. Eusebius (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de source ni de description. Je doute fort de la légalité de cette photo. Xavoun (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – no source information. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted figure. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Rey died in 1965. We'd need evidence as to how the original (copied) figure was in the public domain. --Simonxag (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en:Mikołaj Wisznicki died in 1945, no PD-old --Blacklake (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

far too small, better alternatives exist. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Leyo 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch between License and Text.--84.160.215.234 15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --84.160.215.234 15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Source is a "website" and author is "Kneipenjungs-Fotogrammar". No reason to suppose a free license. --Simonxag (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons' scope. Even within the "Warsaw Uprising reenactment" this group photograph plays un unimportant role. Commons is no photo album for private photographs 132.199.211.29 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems harmless to keep, and (given the context) possibly of interest many years down the line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep In use on a userpage. --Simonxag (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

superceded by file:Alpha-Glucopyranose Fischer Haworth Chair.png, this file contains errors (stereo, structure a, description missing). --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep first of all an svg version is no reason for deletion. Second I can't see any errors (missing stereochemistry is not an error) and thirdly a missing description can be fixed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superceded and still with some minor errors (as indicated). Yikrazuul (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Incorrect, see image notes. --Leyo 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The first diagram is a serious problem: there are two places where the vertical line goes off to the right: at the top, it's done for convenience (so the ring can close) but at the bottom a similar right-angle represents a carbon. That's (as the original nom says and the current annotation supports) a confusing mess. The replacement adds just enough more detail to clarify where atoms actually are vs where bonds are just drawn with bends instead of leaving it all implicit-carbon. The third structure (again per nom) has a weird gap between two bonds that should exactly meet at their ends (they are bonded to the same implied atom), and again the replacement fixes that. The lack of clarity of tetrahedral geometry is not alone reason to delete (it's not correct but it's not hopelessly ambiguous), but again, we have a superior replacement. DMacks (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 11:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

superceded by file:Alpha glucose views.svg, this file contains errors (stereo, structure 2a, description missing). --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: First of all these are different images. Second I can't sea any errors (missing stereochemistry is not an error) and thirdly a missing description can be fixed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La résolution d'image. It's hard to believe that this image is shot by the uploader 132.199.211.29 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No other contributions by this user. I have to say, an image like this seems very unlikely from someone who does not give their real name and has contributed nothing else. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Found also at http://img207.imageshack.us/i/ljubojatj1.jpg/ apparently uploaded on 2009-02-03 -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So  Delete --Simonxag (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important information of the photograph is missing. in addition evidence is not given that this image is a free image in the sense of Commons! 132.199.211.29 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Seems this is a 1982 photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, too crude. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not used, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content. Includes possibly copyrighted logo. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No description, meaningless file name, probably not own work. Yann (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Useless without description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must be deleted because the discription is not good? That's definately no reason for deletion. I changed the description properly. That must be enough by now! In addition "probably not own work" is an extremely bad way to open a deletion discussion. if the basis of such discussions are speculations like this, sorry, but then it is the end for Commons. As User:Sv1xv oftenly stated: There are some users that are suffering from Copyright Paranoia! Greets, Peter13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for making the description better. Without a description, the image is a mystery and not useful to other people who don't know what is shown. However the name "Download" and the fact that the image looks to be at webpage resolution suggest it was downloaded from the web, rather than photographed by you. If you are the photographer, would you be able to please upload a higher resolution version of your photo and give it a better name (like File:Tiruchirapalli Basilica or whatever you think would be a good name). Thanks! Infrogmation (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – in the meantime, this version is deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very similar (the fifth panel is different) to this diagram embedded in http://www.454.com/products-solutions/how-it-works/index.asp copyright © 1996-2008 Roche Diagnostics Corporation. See Legal: Copyright The website of Roche and the information contained and referenced therein are for informational purposes only. Any reproduction, retransmission or other use is strictly prohibited. Request for permission to reproduce any information contained on this website should be addressed to the Roche Webmaster. It may have been an image used in an earlier version of the workflow presentation found at http://www.454.com/products-solutions/multimedia-presentations.asp , the fifth panel can be seen about 90 secvonds into this Flash presentation, who knows? I will submit it for deletion with the above reasoning for others to decide. 84user (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Only upload by that user. Image has upscaling artifacts (looks like an unauthorized derivative work by the uploader). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per nom. Besides, the Permission field indicates used frequently in promotional materials, which sounds more like a rationale for using a third party work rather than a release for one's own work. –Tryphon^☂ 07:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone thinks this collage might not be "free" enough. Can it be fixed? ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there are no real reasons for its deletion. IJA (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not at single image in that gallery has copyright issues, why dont you go to each image (source provided in the image for each picture) and see for yourself. This is vandalism if you ask me. Who is this someone? There is a user who endlessly tries to delete Georgia-related images due to his political views and motivations. I will take off the tag if this user fails to present evidence of any copyright infringement. Iberieli (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please present any evidence of copyright infringement or else i will remove the tag tomorrow October 9th and report anon user for Vandalism. Iberieli (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. seems to be ok. Geagea (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File: Sergo zakariadze.jpg got removed as a copyvio, we'll need to edit it out. But, some of the images are not public domain, so we'll need to check the licenses. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're clear, except for that Sergo one. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's the problem with Sergo? I don't think that the image violates our policy.--Kober (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I removed the copyrighted picture of Sergo, and kept the rest of the image. –Tryphon^☂ 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture/puppet. Powers (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The puppet may be protected by trademark or copyright law, but the picture, which was taken by the user in a public place, is not being sold, merely published. Displaying the image has no negative economic impact on the copyright holder, nor does it benefit the user economically. Considering these factors, the image should be protected by fair use. --Kevincollins123 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not allow fair use on Commons. This is supposed to be a free image repository. Powers (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep there is no visible parts of that sculpture, only some shiny eyes, mouth -- Justass (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Though you can't see much, I think the subject of the picture could well be judged to be the copyrighted artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Simonxag. –Tryphon^☂ 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Windows UI and icons are copyrighted --Justass (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, the entire image, within reason, has to be free for inclusion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medium size, no EXIF, questionnable user, stated as own work but no date given and all fields filled with "no". Eusebius (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is no cropped version of this image! Thus copyright violation 132.199.211.29 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we just need to revert (and delete that version). Someone uploaded it over an image that was, indeed, cropped from there. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the copyright violated revision, and restore the compliant image. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Reverted and deleted the bad revision only. –Tryphon^☂ 07:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptor Niilo Kokko died in 1975. Statue not in Public domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola ^{t • c} 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is clearly a copyvio and should be fast-deleted. I will clear the links to this file in Finnwiki. Estormiz (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Is this an architectural building or a statue? Could one go into the "statue"? There seems to be some discrepancy. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 08:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work from 1948; no COM:FOP#Sweden indoors. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I overinterpreted the Swedish FOP. /Dcastor (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not in use, too poor qual, superceded by one of those pics. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image is usable and also not superseded. These are different images. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the desciption is wrong: adding H2 to glucose gives sorbitol (whatever sorbitil is). As the case may be, the file has to be deleted by given reasons or because the factual accuracy of this chemical structure is disputed.--Yikrazuul (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete if not in use (unfortunately CheckUsage is down, so I cannot tell). Low quality chemical structure, replaceable by other files. –Tryphon^☂ 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hexitol
  Hexitol
• 
  Sorbitol
• D-Mannitol
  D-Mannitol

The point is that there is no replacment picture. Hexitol is the general structure of a group of substances. The above gallery should illustrate that. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no structure of THE "Hexitol", neither wikipedia lists that nor any textbook shows that. The structure presented could be something like "Alloit" or "Allositol"(reduced form of Allose), but the author claims it is something different. Hence it is original thought, without ANY source! --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that "link", the only one (not trustworthy, since (1) every other reduced sugar including sorbitol, mannitol,... refers to that, (2) the CAS number does not stand for "hexitol" compare GESTIS, [ http://chembiofinder.cambridgesoft.com/chembiofinder/SimpleSearch.aspx ChemBioFinder]). Compare something more reliable, like Google Books. You won't find a structure! For a so important structure very interesting. And start answering my questions! Hexitol is not a structure, but only the name of different structures, kind of a group name. Likewise there is no THE sugar strucutre. Hence it is TF to draw a structure like this here! --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, as it seems there isn't really any equivalent for this file on Commons. The fact that the existence/relevance of this structure is disputed doesn't mean it should be deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Whether the substance exists or not is nothing to do with it.  Chzz  ►  14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep the putative (!) structure of a substance which does not exist in science and no textbook (as far) has printed a kind of "proposal"??? This would be clearly out of project scope! --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Leyo 09:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(It is my file and i uploaded the wrong picture along with an uaccurate file description ) --Devonhewett (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Devonhewett (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Why do you want to delete your picture, when you're using it on your website? --Simonxag (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i do not want it published on wikipedia please delete it) --Devonhewett

 Delete personal image as per uploader's request. It does seem bizarre that he hasn't removed it from his Wikipedia userpage. --Simonxag (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of project scope, file name useless, poor quality. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC) --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Unfortunately, there is presently no high quality alternative in Category:Aldols. --Leyo 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Delete --Leyo 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is clearly in scope, can be renamed and is usuable. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Although I don't agree with the first two reasons, Yikrazuul is right about the third one. In addition there are good alternatives and this image depicts the structure in a very unusal way. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Delete. This is an old one from me and up to now there exist better ones. rjh, 8:13, 29 October 2009

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image has not be authorized by the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and should be removed from this site immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.229.159 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Abigor (talk · contribs) with reason "In category Other speedy deletions, not edited for 0 days". --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prominently features a copyrighted photo by Robert Mapplethorpe 67.39.251.254 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The President of the ToF Foundation, Durk Dehner in person, allowed to use Mapplethorpe's photo of Tom of Finland for this portrait in front of the foundation's estate. Henning von Berg allowed his picture to be featured for free here at Wiki. (September 19, 2009)

Neither of them owns the copyright to Mapplethorpe's work. This is a copyvio.

•  Comment: We can put a Gaussian blur over the copyrighted photo and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, the background photo is de minimis. --Kjetil_r 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background photo is why it was uploaded to Wikipedia in the first place: to supply a photo of the subject for the article about him, without using the fullsize photo. - 99.24.251.105 02:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, this photo is clearly a copyvio. I thought the main subject was the person in front. --Kjetil_r 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an editor who's tried to justify the use of the image by claiming that the guy in front is notable... but, no. - JasonAQuest
        • I agree with jasonaquest above in that i was just perusing this article and thought the man standing in front of the picture was tom, instead after reading hte description, it's just somebody looking to promote himself.

(talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep but crop and/or blur per Jmabel. The photo is currently in several "Tom of Finland" articles and the person in this picture is its co-founder. Wknight94 ^talk 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, abuse of FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is not in the public domain and we will post one that is is the public domain instead Perezjose (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete uploader says this is a copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is not in the public domain and we will post one that is is the public domain instead --82.247.77.240 20:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been tagged for deletion since April 2009, but wasn't specifically listed on the associated DR, so it didn't get deleted with the rest of the files. Now I'm not a musician, but it seems to me that this is not really part of the original work, but more of a tool to study the work (like a textbook analizing a litterary work, whose copyright is not related to the original work except for verbatim quotes). Can it be kept? –Tryphon^☂ 09:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep As I said in April, nobody disputes the fact that Ravel's Boléro is still copyrighted in its origin country (France). Nevertheless, the French law has a code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle) which allows the reproduction of a short quotation of a copyrighted work, under condition that the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated (article No. L122-5). In this very case, it appears difficult to consider that two bars represent more than a short quotation of the entire work, even though the rythm remains unchanged through the whole Boléro. Kokin (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Kokin. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per Kokin Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]