Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/03

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

[edit] File:Greaves_hall.jpg

Suspected copyvio. Appears to be taken from http://www.northmeols.com/history/greaveshall/index.html only with the watermark cropped out (if you look closely you can just make out the top of the "h" and "l" in "northmeols". Uploader claims this as his own work, but the original is copyright A. Wright WLDC (presumably West Lancashire District Council). Small-town hero (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will admit that it is from that website. I was new to Wikipedia at the time of uploading that image and I didn't know any better, but a couple a days ago I found this was wrong. I was in the process of deleting it myself, but I just forgot about it. I fully approve of this deletion as I am more of an experienced user on Wikipedia and I look forward to taking my own images myself soon. Thanks. 93gregsonl (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per uploader's explanation. --Simonxag (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license

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

[edit] File:Bonnie_SG.jpg

plenty of other 'suicide girl' 'alt porn' type pics on commons, and wikipedia, and per this conversation, model would seem to prefer deletion. I support this. Privatemusings (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete It seems clear that the image was release under a CC license, so that Wikipedia / Commons / anyone else has a legal right to use it so far as copyright is concerned. However, copyright is not the only consideration. The model is objecting to its use. We don't have a copy of the model release to determine whether, copyright aside, it may be used as it is here. Even if there was a satisfactory model release, there's no good reason to continue using it in the face of the model's objections. There seem to be enough photos of a similar type where the model does not object to its use that it seems silly to keep this one. TJRC (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep No evidence that en:User:Bonniesuicide is the subject; image is still on a free license on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

could I ask if you'd agree to a deletion if it were established to your satisfaction that the subject requests it? Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I had the same question, but I looked over the contribution history of User:Bonniesuicide, and I don't see any reason not to believe her. It seems legit.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep 1.) there's absolutely no evidence that the objecting user is the model on the picture. As Pieter Kuiper just said above. 2.) If the picture was taken by SG, in a commercial setting, there has to be a model release. SG owns the rights for the picture and is able to release them as well.--Lamilli (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep, per Pieter Kuiper. –Tryphon^☂ 13:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked the user in question on en.wikipedia to contact me to confirm that she is the model, no email has been received so far. I will also check OTRS too if anything is there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An OTRS email has been sent about this image, Ticket# 2009102910059965. I will try and talk to the user and find out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete While technically, there is no reason that we have to delete, because the owner of the copyright (Suicide Girls) has irrevocably released it, we should delete it in the interest of great justice. First, there are LOTS of other pictures that fill the same purpose, so there is not a great loss. Second, the subject (User:Bonniesuicide) has been polite and respectful in asking for its deletion. Third, it appears that Suicide Girls did not fully make its subjects aware that the images would be released in CC and thus spread all over Wikipedia. So, this should be a discretionary deletion. I would suggest that a closing admin make it clear that we are deleting it, even though we are not compelled. --Blargh29 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Assuming that we are sure that the person asking for deletion is the subject of the photo, I think we should delete it as a courtesy. I don't see any more than routine value in the image; if there is something in particular for which it is irreplaceable, no one here has indicated what that might be. Certainly if I had taken a photo like this and its subject later asked for deletion, I would urge deletion as a courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg was kept, although the subject had not posed for it, although the photographer had removed it from public view on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that should have been a delete too. Our mission includes being kind to others. It certainly includes being kind to others when it doesn't even really inconvenience us to do so. ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral The problem with Burning Man was that the person did not like to be nude on the web. As I understand it the reason for this request is that SG gave it to Commons for free. We will probably not miss this single image but if we delete what do we do if others request a deletion of their images? --MGA73 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment First of all: let's make sure the person asking IS REALLY the person on the picture. I have my doubts. Second: it's a gerneral thing. As said above, if we follow that request, how do we handle the next one - and then the next etc.--Lamilli (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Besides: the picture is in use.--Lamilli (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On the first point, that is what I am trying to establish. So far, all signs point to yes. Second, that is why we have commonsdelinker/awb and I know, at least for en.wikipedia, all uses were removed from articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Before we delete anything. Has someone notified dewiki and other places where the image is in use? --MGA73 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Nice image, but it appears to be causing the model some distress and we have plenty of good alternative images for the things it is illustrating. --Simonxag (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete As others say, "technically" we would be within rights to keep this image, all the licenses are in place. But we don't "need" to keep it, it's not so unique that we couldn't replace it with something functionally equivalent (as has already been done on alt-porn, and since the model has requested that it be deleted, we should go along with that request. ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What for? Because she thinks that she can make more money that way? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a nice thing to do. There's no need to be mean. We have plenty of similar images with willing models. Don't be such a hardass. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

She is a willing model - she just does not want the photos to be free. That is perfectly understandable, but I would assume that she had been paid by the photographer. Maybe too little, but that is not a reason to delete. However, I can change my !vote when you delete those two photos of the dancing girl at Burning Man. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I received an email today from the model in question; I received enough information to confirm that this is indeed the model in question with 100 percent accuracy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FAO Pieter Kuiper I fully appreciate your point about me being a willing model, however the deletion request is nothing to do with money as I no longer work for Suicide Girls. Had I realised the image would be given to a creative commons (or even put on Flickr, to be honest) and therefore spread liberally throughout the internet, I would not have persued work with Suicide Girls. My deletion request is purely appealing to the kindness of people's hearts. Just thought I'd let you know :) Bonniesuicide (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

delete this image The subject wants it gone, we have plenty of other images of Suicide girls, it's well within our ability to remove this image on her consent. We're allowed to judge these on a piece by piece basis--and sometimes we're allowed to simply do the right and appropriate thing. Bastique ^demandez 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Model requested deletion, OTRS Ticket# 2009102910059965. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Southern_Cassowary.jpg

duplicate of Southern_Cassowary_in_rainforest DaveKimble (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Duplicate of File:Southern Cassowary in rainforest.jpg; its license was more restrictive though, so I changed it to match the one of File:Southern_Cassowary.jpg ({{PD-self}}), as free licenses are irrevocable. –Tryphon^☂ 13:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Emily_Williams_-_Kmart.jpg

Only 10 images on this flickr account. No proof the flickrowner owns the rights to the picture. Leoboudv (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep All 10 pictures are quite small, but they're all taken at the same event and appear non-professional. Apart from the size they're the sort of thing Flickr members upload. If the Flickr member doesn't own them, where did they steal all 10 from? --Simonxag (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep On second thoughts, I withdraw my nomination. I forgot they were all taken at the same place and are novice images--so like;y own work. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Kate_DeAraugo_-_Kmart_Crop.jpg

Only 10 images on this flickr account. No clear evidence uploader is the copyright owner. Leoboudv (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep All 10 pictures are quite small, but they're all taken at the same event and appear non-professional. Apart from the size they're the sort of thing Flickr members upload. If the Flickr member doesn't own them, where did they steal all 10 from? --Simonxag (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep On second thoughts, I withdraw my nomination. I forgot they were all taken at the same place and are novice images--so likely own work. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Hod_Hasharon_COA.png

The license seems incorrect (it seems to cover architectural works) Lucasbfr (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i'm sorry but you should read carefully the {{FoP-Israel}} template. I used this template for all Israeli COA's after a series of discussion on this issue. Please contact User:Drork, who created this template, if you still have questions. The above mentioned template DOES cover Coat of Arms in Israel (which are works of applied art permanently placed in public places. Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Israel for the discussion. The argument is that CoA's are applied art. And some representations of these are of course permanently placed somewhere... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Avi (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Administración_Pública_Nacional-2009.png

As indicated at the bottom right of the image. this file does not come from the Argentine Presidency website but from http://www.sgp.gov.ar/ . ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, per nom. –Tryphon^☂ 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Latin.gif

Does not look like own work to me. ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Is there any positive evidence there's something wrong with it? It doesn't look like a commercial image, though it might have been derived from one. --Simonxag (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But if the original work is copyrighted, we cannot keep this derivative work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a copyvio. The original image was from this site, then rotated using Photoshop.  Delete User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Christie.gif

I'm nominating this file for deletion as its public domain licence is incorrect. If the photo was taken in 1940, it could not become part of the public domain until 2010, and even then whoever took the photo would have had to have died in 1940 as well. The licence does not provide any information as to who took the original photo or from where it was obtained. Given this absence of information, it seems likely that this photo is in fact subject to copyright. Wcp09 (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, per nom. No indication that any research has been carried out to find the author's name, so {{Anonymous-EU}} doesn't apply either. –Tryphon^☂ 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:GDUT.png

Clearly not PD-textlogo for me, needs an OTRS permission Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, most likely above the originality threshold. –Tryphon^☂ 13:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Not pd-textlogo. — Jagro (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tatjana_Batinic_3.jpg

The presence of these files on the internet makes me doubt the own work claim: http://www2.vietbao.vn/images/vn2/giai-tri/20556449_images941415_b4.jpg http://www.infobar.ba/2006/barometar/nove/tatjana-batnic-2.jpg Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Found the exact source. I speedy. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tatjana_Batinic_4.JPG

Given the other uploads of the user, I doubt the own work claim on this picture (no EXIF). Eusebius (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an own work statement anymore, the author field has been field with the subject's name. For me, uploader clearly isn't the copyright holder. --Eusebius (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete, professional studio picture, no EXIF, and no clear authorship statement. –Tryphon^☂ 13:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete The author is stated as "Tatjana Batinic". Clearly a publicity shot. We need OTRS permission. --Simonxag (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tatjana_Batinic_2.jpg

Given the other uploads of the user, I doubt the own work claim on this picture (no EXIF). Eusebius (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete The user may be Tatjana Batinic, but if so she needs to confirm this to OTRS. --Simonxag (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tatjana_Batinic_1.JPG

Given the other uploads of the user, I doubt the own work claim on this picture. Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete The user may be Tatjana Batinic, but if so she needs to confirm this to OTRS. --Simonxag (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Location_big.jpg

Currently no sign that the satellite image is free of rights. Holds a Google watermark, but they're most probably not the coypright holders either. Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Blatant {{copyvio}} ({{derivative}}, if you wish). Why didn't you delete it immediately? --Dodo (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not blatant at all, since it misses a source. Of which source is it a derivative? Many satellite images are free of rights, we currently just don't know. If you do, please share your info. --Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• At the very least, derivative from an unacknowledged source, since the uploader certainly wasn't in outer space to snap the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Derived from satellite or high level aerial image for which there is no source. --Simonxag (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 06:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Saida_International_Stadium_stand.jpg

No FOP in Lebanon, stadium build in 2000 Justass (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I missed the "the media" bit in the FOP country listing. Sigh.....Nuke it (tagged for Speedy delete soon) - Peripitus (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Túrelio: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saida International Stadium stand.jpg: No FOP in Lebanon, stadium build in 2000

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

[edit] File:MC_Joe_004.jpg

Out of scope. Seems to be a photo of a non-notable individual. Not in use, no categories. Pruneau^talk 11:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin: assuming this file gets deleted, you can then delete Category:Media needing categories as of 1 October 2008. Pruneau^talk 11:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Alois_Hudal.JPG

1936 photograph, zero efforts done to find out the author, the upload even claims the en.wp uploader as author. Very, very likely the copyright not expired as copyright expired 70 years after the authors death. The image is also fair use in en.wp (with a strange PD license), fair use is not allowed here. Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. It seems the original uploader was very confused about copyrights etc. --Simonxag (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Colo Colo Campeón 2006.jpg

Flickrwashing and deleted license, submit a license or should be deleted by loss of vital information. --Alegoria (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert about flickrwashing detection but as far as I remember, the user of the Flickr account said that he was a professional photographer (even his name "reporterografico" says that). I've tried to find if there is an "original source" from where the picture was taken, but I haven't find any. The user was deleted so we can't prove the owner was really the author of the picture... but also we don't have any proof against him. Besides, the license was reviewed at the time and was confirmed to be valid. --B1mbo (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I understand it. The user Alegoria is seeking some kind of revenge because he uploaded non-free material of his football team and it was deleted, as you can see here. The "proof" that the image wasn't free is that I was the reviewer of similar pics, that the pics looks like cropped (???) and that the user doesn't exists anymore. --B1mbo (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matías Fernández.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Eugène Fredrik Jansson

right name: Category:Eugène Jansson --User:Macarrones Correct malformed DR --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not the right venue for this. If the move is clearly uncontroversial, ask at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If you think it might be controversial, then see Commons:Categories for discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:OgAAAKUuca2adS8MxMTE-tK4SqDlGLrR9QbCTZgXFURySDvssyUV1GpPzS5JlLgAgyr61T8Dah6xqkImG9lq-5kHv3MAm1T1UAyHpt4FacGbmeiLv9MGCJ3Tge1I.jpg

personal photo, used for vandalism in es.wiki Justass (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

and smaller duplicate of the same picture File:OgAAAJvA7EMcSn85ySdGk3XWrkzcq R6lomDIYL24xtR2hz05lCzLLQi-nf0RPN5xPB6Jie0b5iDkGpNnGUYC1HEfjsAm1T1UIIf9ZO9m8V6v5vQREDFiToKWox7.jpg--Justass (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Attack image. — Jagro (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Claims, in Spanish, to be the jacket of a forthcoming disc, for what that's worth. - Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete possible copyvio and unused. --Simonxag (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Matías Fernández.jpg

Possible Flickrwashing and deleted license, submit a license or should be deleted by loss of vital information--Alegoria (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colo Colo Campeón 2006.jpg --B1mbo (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Im not 100% free of doubts with this flickr account, but the accusation of flickrwashing is wrong and stupid. I already spent some time on this image month ago, so far no evidence that the image on flickr was not correctly licensed by the copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Areholek.png

unlikely that this map was created by uploader, I have found bigger version on net [1], but again it has unknown origin --Justass (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete on basic precautionary principle, I think. - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete If you look at high resolution you can see it's a print and there's no author or source for this. --Simonxag (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Volvol90d.jpg

Uploader wants to have this file deleted but seems to be unable to open a deletion request. Personally I don't see a problem with this file Denniss (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep, I see no reason to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Problem user, but commons has better images of Volvo loaders, this image is not worth a fight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem user? --High Contrast (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this files version history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes him not a "problem user". He is quite honestly unexperienced. --High Contrast (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, I am not the real owner of this work. The real owner don't like it that I added this picture. 12.33 8 November 2009

Jim Kerssens ([[User talk:Jim Kerssens|<

Deleted. Questionable copyright status. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Aichi.jpg

Uploader wants to have this file deleted but seems to be unable to open a deletion request. Personally I don't see a problem with this file. Denniss (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep unless there is any copyright issue and take actions against uploaded if he continues destructive behaviour --Justass (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep, per Justass. - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per Jim Kerssens. - Please delete this file, I am not the owner of this work and the real owner don't like it that I added this file. So please delete it 12.31 8 November 2009

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:ShanicaKnowles.jpg

screenshot, taken from computer screen, see the mouse and raster in picture --Motopark (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Most unlikely to be own work. --Simonxag (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, copyright violation, self-created screenshot but derivative of non-free content. Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Unnow_Butterfly.jpg

Name found. No highter quality. Replaced with another quality file. 84.74.147.73 10:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• And that would be File:Eupackardia calleta 02.JPG. Not quite the same but close enough. Definitely higher quality. Rocket000 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep nothing wrong with the image, commons is a media repository, we don't just collect "one of" everything.

also; the nominator is an "anonymous IP who went on a spree of spurious deletion noms; should be shut down & investigated. Lx 121 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

::also, also: i see no evidence that the nominator has "replaced" anything? Lx 121 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

follow-up; 3 points:

1. nominator didn't bother linking to the "replacement" file (which, as mentioned above, is NOT identical; thank-you to Rocket000 for finding & adding it), or categorizing this one; the only contributions for this IP are deletion noms.

2. the wing-colouring shows better in this photo, especially towards the left wingtip, than it does in the other image, which is somewhat darker; it might be worth cropping a close-up here as a derivative work

3. i've added this photograph to the appropriate category, which now has a grand total of three files! ...i really don't think we need to "thin the ranks" here XD

Lx 121 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept / --Fanghong (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr_Medic.png

Valid source is missing: "US Army and/or Delta Force soldiers" is not sufficient High Contrast (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene. Sherurcij (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr_in_Rubble_2.png

Valid source is missing: "Soldiers on the scene" or "Member of the 19th SFG who cannot be identified" is not sufficient. High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)  Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr_in_Rubble_1.png

Valid source is missing: "Soldiers on the scene" or "Member of the 19th SFG who cannot be identified" is not sufficient. High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:HighRezButNeedsWork_-_Khadr_AA_Care.jpg

Valid source is missing: "US Army" is not sufficient High Contrast (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section-test version-1.jpg

Image quality test/evaluation finished. Thank you. --Namazu-tron Correct malformed DR --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Unused test version of File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section.jpg. --Simonxag (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: Uploader request: test image by uploader who asked for deletion; dupklicate of File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section.jpg

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

[edit] File:Williams_and_Yaz.jpg

An AP photo, not the work of the Census Bureau: http://www.boston.com/sports/redsox/williams/wallpaper.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Image not found at the indicated source url. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Listing here since I forgot to list the deletion request back in May. --Ytoyoda (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 04:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr30.png

Essential source is missing: "Video captured at the scene of the firefight" is no valid source. Moreover using "PD-USGov-Military-Army" demands that a US Army employee is the author of a file, an "Unknown photographer" makes the use of PD-Army impossible. High Contrast (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, the file - uploaded at the same time as another - had the incorrect source information. I have corrected that now. Sherurcij (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Your correction is still not sufficient: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr20.png

Essential source is missing: "Video captured at the scene of the firefight" is no valid source. Moreover using "PD-USGov-Military-Army" demands that a US Army employee is the author of a file, an "Unknown photographer" makes the use of PD-Army impossible. High Contrast (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, image had incorrect source information since it was batch-uploaded, that error is now corrected. Sherurcij (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Your correction is still not sufficient: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr's_Colleague.png

Essential source is missing: A link to a YouTube-video is no valid source. Moreover using "PD-USGov-Military-Army" demands that a US Army employee is the author of a file, an "Unknown photographer" makes the use of PD-Army impossible. High Contrast (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete no clear evidence of PD-US --Simonxag (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr_receiveing_AA_care.PNG

Valid source is missing: US Department of Defense" is not sufficient High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Khadr_medic_2.png

Valid source is missing: "US Army and/or Delta Force soldiers" is not sufficient High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep -- Nominator has not mentioned that this image was already nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Khadr medic 2.png two years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: why was the source information not improved after the last deletion request? --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:KHadr5.png

Valid source is missing: "photo taken by member of the 19th SFG, who cannot be identified". Using "PD-USGov-Military" demands that a US military employee is the author of a certain file, an "unknown photographer" makes the use of PD-military impossible. High Contrast (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Keepitlauth.jpg

Image only used for speedy deleted article on en, no other useful purposes Delete --Secret (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete unused personal image. Possible copyvio "cover of the short story". --Simonxag (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused); probably copyvio

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

[edit] category:Nelida Lobato

Bad name. Traslating to category:Nélida Lobato --ferbr1 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not the right venue for this. If the move is clearly uncontroversial, ask at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If you think it might be controversial, then see Commons:Categories for discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirected' -- Deadstar (msg) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Speer_at_Bagram_being_unloaded_by_the_396th_Medical.jpg

No evidence is stated that this file's author is a US military employee so that "PD-USGov-Military-Army" can be applied. Just stating "Primary source is the United States Department of Defense" is not considered to be a valid source. High Contrast (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Enough information is given to verify the source. We don't delete images just because, without a reason to disbelieve that they're PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Obviously a bad faith nom. -Nard the Bard 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Speer_being_Unloaded_at_Bagram.jpg

No evidence is stated that this file's author is a US military employee so that "PD-USGov-Military-Army" can be applied. Just stating "Primary source is the United States Department of Defense" is not considered to be a valid source. High Contrast (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Enough information is given to verify the source. We don't delete images just because, without a reason to disbelieve that they're PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Uncropped_Medical_Treatment_of_Omar_Khadr.JPG

No evidence is stated that this file's author is a US military employee so that "PD-USGov-Military-Army" can be applied. Just stating "Image was taken by a member of the 19th Special Forces on July 27, 2002" is not considered to be a valid source. High Contrast (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep, possible bad-faith nomination by a user who suddenly nominated every image in a category for deletion saying either it had a crappy source or copyright, despite every single image being taken by a soldier in commission of his duties. It does not demand that the 19th SPECIAL FORCES group list the proper name of its operators, it is taken by a member of the 19th SFG - that is enough. The image was entered as evidence in the Guantanamo hearing by the Department of Defence who listed it as taken by soldiers at the scene.

Note also that a nearly-identical deletion request was made in March 2008 when the photo was first uploaded, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg and closed as a "Keep" with consensus being that it was indeed a photograph by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, exactly as claimed on Wiki, and in all sources that have reprinted it. Note also the discussions that followed on User talk:Zscout370/Archive3 where the deleting administrator was chided for deleting the files despite them having valid copyright and source information, and the files were all restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, hold on. We don't know that the photo was taken by an American soldier. It could have been taken by an Afghani, who then gave his-or-her camera to the Americans. Because the Americans would have been perfectly okay with having their photos taken by nonsoldiers under those circumstances! DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Seven letters, starts with "s", rhymes with "bar chasm". No, I wasn't serious there. DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who originally nominated this image for deletion two years ago was convinced the image was taken by a reporter -- even though there were no press reports from any reporters present during this operation; even though, as Sherurcij pointed out, s:OC-1 CITF witness report catalogs dozens of official photos taken by the GIs involved in the fight. Contributor above suggests that images could have been taken by an Afghani. This suggestion is extremely far fetched. Afghanistan is a very poor country. Regular Afghans are illiterate. In 2002 rural Afghans had no electricity to charge modern digital cameras, and no photo processing shops for developing film from traditional film cameras. Were there Afghan soldiers present? Yes. The irregular auxiliaries supplied by independent commander w:Pacha Khan Zadran. I suggest it is extremely far-fetched to suggest that Pacha Khan Zadran's troops were any more likely to own, or know how to use a camera, than any of the neighbors. There was at least one other individual present following the fight, who was not an Afghan or American soldier. His (or her) identity has been obfuscated for security reasons -- but we know he or she was also an employee of a US Federal agency. Commentators have generally speculated that he or she was a CIA agent. Another possibility is that he or she may have been from the DEA or State. Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)`

 Comment This is no "bad-faith nomination". There are simply obvious image source problems: As Commons:Licensing tells us: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a citation if possible. --High Contrast (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source, Williams, Carol J. LOS ANGELES TIMES, "A child soldier or just a child?", December 27, 2008, note that it clearly says "The photographs taken by U.S. soldiers as they stormed the bombed-out compound".

Additionally, w:Layne Morris, the one 19th SFG member to publicly speak about being in the firefight, talks about taking photographs in the article McLeon, Kagan. National Post, "One U.S. soldier was killed and four others injured in a fierce gun battle in a remote village in Afghanistan."

And finally, you can read the After-Action Report filed by the US military at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, where you'll notice the 19th SFG says "During this interview, - drew several sketches to depict the landscape, surroundings, and events. - also provided copies of pictures taken on 27 July 02 at the compound. He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and were given to him in the immediate days following this event."

Now, if your only interest was truly in determining these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG and are public domain, you should be satisfied. But since I imagine there may be some other minor reason in the back of your mind you want to see these photographs removed, I'm going to guess you'll keep arguing.

Sherurcij (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Enough information is given to verify the source. We don't delete images just because, without a reason to disbelieve that they're PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I did manage to find a news article from the CBC that contains the above image. It does not say here if it was taken by US or Afghani, so that does not help much. However, I do have a few ideas. I noticed one a website owned by a university in California, the Toronto Star released a few photos. Maybe someone who is Canadian could ask them where they got it. Or, if you are so inclined, make a FOIA request for all images related to Khadr. Finding a true source for the actual images will be pretty hard, since this is a combat zone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article from the Toronto Star does mention photos were taken after the combat that Khadr was captured in, but once again, it did not say who took them. However, the article does mentioned they were obtained from classified information (which would assume US Military). I sent an email to the CBC, but given the legal developments of what happened recently, we might be seeing some more photos and maybe more information on who took what. However, I do not believe the photos are Afghan in nature. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Michelle Shephard, the author of Guantanamo's child, was the first reporter to give an account of a Kafka-esque incident that occurred several years ago, and shortly before the the Toronto Star republished this picture.
      1. A bunch of reporters showed up to observe one of Omar Khadr's pre-trial hearings.
      2. The clerks in charge of copying and distributing the evidence screwed up. They were supposed to make two copies of the evidence. The Commission members and the lawyers were to get the unredacted, classified versions. The suspects, and the reporters were supposed to get redacted versions.
      3. The five page document OC-1 CITF witness report was distributed to reporters in unredacted form.
      4. The Kafka-esque portion of the incident is that after the suspect and Commission members left the court-room officers told the reporters that, before they were allowed to leave the courtroom they would have to return the unredacted documents that had been given to them in error.
      5. The reporters showed back-bone and declined to hand the documents back. They were not allowed to leave. A tense 90-minute standoff followed. Eventually a compromise was arrived at -- the reporters were allowed to keep the unredacted version of the document -- provided they agreed not to publish any of the names in the document.
    • My theory is that the 27 attachments mentioned in this document, including the photo of the exit wounds in Khadr's chest, were among the 27 attachments to the OC-1 report. Geo Swan (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep per User:Sherurcij --Simonxag (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I too am troubled by this nomination. I think it is regretable that the nominator of [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157] didn't review OC-1 CITF witness report prior to making these nominations. All of the photos are listed in OC-1 CITF witness report. Geo Swan (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Leo_Singers_Midgets_-_1902_Poster.jpg

Please delete first version. It's an altered version of the original that may be an original work of a graphic artist. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• No objection, but probably not enough originality in that to rise to the level of a rights issue. - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete per uploader request (uploader doubts copyright status). --Simonxag (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Sofia-by-ramaio.jpg

Improbable as "own work" - see http://www.tineye.com/search/9d9fa100ae08dcf29c4f0b3bde99f9f340e0e3d6 for evidence Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted already as copyvio by Martin H. Tabercil (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] File:Gili trawangan mm cidomo.jpg

after transferring to commons i noticed that the informations about author and source don't seem to fit together. Maybe copyright violation. Kersti (Diskussion) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC) --Kersti (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Author is given as the original uploader on Wikipedia, but a source is given for a (dead link) website. No camera data. --Simonxag (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)